Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

MEMBER SWORN.

A Member took and subscribed the Oath.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Provisional Order Bills (No Standing Orders applicable),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bills, referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, namely,

Kingston-upon-Hull Provisional Order Bill.
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Wisbech Joint Isolation Hospital District) Bill.
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Colwyn Bay) Bill.
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Bedford) Bill.
Ministry of Health Provisional Order (East Hertfordshire Joint Hospital District) Bill.

Bills to be read a Second time To-morrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

INSURANCE (NON-MANUAL WORKERS).

Mr. Storey: asked the Minister of Labour whether His Majesty's Government have come to any decision as to the introduction of legislation to carry out the recommendations of the Unemployment Insurance Statutory Commission that the salary limit for unemployment insurance for non-manual workers should be raised from £250 to £400 per annum?

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Brown): No, Sir.

Mr. Storey: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when he is likely to be able to make a statement?

Mr. Brown: Not at the moment.

Mr. Shinwell: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall the promise he made to introduce legislation of this character very shortly?

Mr. Brown: No, I recall no such promise.

SPECIAL AREAS.

Mr. Storey: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will make a statement upon the investigations his Department has made, together with the Ministry of Transport, into the ways and means of providing work for young men from the Special Areas under the Trunk Roads Act?

Mr. E. Brown: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport has decided, in consultation with me, that he will endeavour to secure that all workpeople employed by contractors (except a percentage for supervisory purposes) and any additional workpeople employed by local authorities on works of construction or improvement of trunk roads, undertaken after 1st April next, shall be engaged through the Employment Exchanges. In filling these vacancies, the Exchanges will take every proper opportunity to submit suitable men from the Special Areas and other areas of heavy unemployment, and will pay special attention to the claims of young men who have successfully completed a course at an instructional centre.

Mr. George Griffiths: Will the Minister not forget the semi-depressed areas, where there are thousands of unemployed? I hope they will get employment in their own area.

Mr. Brown: In this case, the question is about the Special Areas.

Mr. Anderson: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that, owing to the delayed decision respecting a trading estate for West Cumberland, potential new industries are being held up; and whether it has now been decided to establish a trading estate for West Cumberland Special Area?

Mr. Brown: This question is being considered as part of the general proposals to be embodied in the forthcoming legislation dealing with the Special Areas. In


the circumstances I am not in a position to give a more definite reply at the moment.

Mr. Anderson: Is it not a fact that the Commissioner for Special Areas indicated that the principle of trading estates had already been agreed upon, and is it not a further fact that some months ago I put a similar question and was given the answer that the matter was receiving consideration? When may we expect a definite reply?

Mr. Brown: When it can be related to proposals in the Bill. We shall have this matter very much in mind.

Mr. W. Joseph Stewart: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is now in a position to state when the Special Areas Bill will be introduced?

Mr. Brown: I have nothing to add to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) on Thursday last.

Mr. Stewart: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an approximate date when this Bill will be introduced? Many questions have been asked with regard to schemes of work for the Special Areas and we have been told time and again to wait for the introduction of the Bill. Can he give a date for the Bill?

Mr. Brown: I cannot give a date.

Table showing the number of men and women transferred under the Industrial Transference Scheme from Whitehaven, Cleator Moor, Egremont and Millom each month during the year 1936.




Men
Women


Month
Whitehaven.
Cleator Moor.
Egremont.
Millom.
Whitehaven.
Cleator Moor.
Egremont.
Millom.


January
…
15
7
3
—
4
2
1
4


February
…
39
9
—
—
12
10
—
—


March
…
32
—
3
4
8
10
1
—


April
…
20
3
—
4
21
23
2
1


May
…
34
14
2
1
14
9
1
1


June
…
29
10
—
3
18
6
—
—


July
…
17
6
—
—
8
4
—
—


August
…
19
4
—
4
9
5
3
1


September
…
56
8
2
—
4
2
—
—


October
…
36
—
1
2
1
3
—
—


November
…
52
5
—
2
5
1
—
—


December
…
15
1
—
—
6
1
—
2


Total
…
364
67
11
20
110
76
8
9

Mr. Lawson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when this matter was last debated in the House Members on both sides were influenced by the statement which the right hon. Gentleman made to the effect that a Bill would be introduced before the end of January?

Mr. Brown: That was not the statement made. The statement made was that the Bill would be introduced soon after the House met in January.

Mr. Stewart: Have the Government got a Bill at all?

Mr. Lawson: In view of the Minister's statement is it not possible for him to give some idea of the approximate date of the introduction of the Bill and what is the reason for the delay?

Mr. Brown: The reason is that we want to do the very best we can for these areas.

TRANSFEREES.

Mr. Anderson: asked the Minister of Labour how many persons have been transferred from Whitehaven, Cleator Moor, Egremont, and Millom areas, men and women separately, under the transfer scheme, during the 12 months ended 3ist December, 1936, showing each month separately?

Mr. E. Brown: As the reply involves a table of figures, I will circulate it, with the hon. Member's permission, in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the table of figures:

ASSISTANCE.

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Minister of Labour the number of areas where unemployment assistance boards are still operating the original rent rule fixing basic rent as one-fourth of the provisional allowance?

Mr. E. Brown: I assume the hon. Member is referring to adjustments in allowances when the rent paid is less than one-fourth of the scale rates of the household. I am informed by the board that under the recommendations of the local advisory committees concerned such adjustments to the extent of the full difference are being made as a general rule in four areas only, all of which are substantially rural in character. Some 20 of the remaining 122 committees have made recommendations under which adjustments to the extent of the full difference are made in specific classes of cases such as applicants in households with resources and applicants living in the rural parts of an area.

Mr. James Griffiths: Would it not be for the convenience of hon. Members who are interested in this question if the right hon. Gentleman made available in the House in some way or another the rentals that have now been adopted as a result of the committees' recommendations.

Mr. Brown: I will consider that.

Mr. Gallacher: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the four areas where this applies?

Mr. Brown: Not at the moment, but I will consider the form in which this information can best be given to hon. Members.

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Minister of Labour the percentage of unemployed persons who have received increased payments from local unemployment assistance boards since the revised Regulations came into force; whether the percentage in the county of Fife is above or below that in other areas; and whether any sub-district in Fife has a higher proportion of unemployed receiving such increases than the other sub-districts of the county?

Mr. Brown: Of the total number of persons in Great Britain who were in receipt of unemployment assistance and whose circumstances had remained unchanged since the last assessment under the old Regulations, about 36 per cent.

received increased payments under the new Regulations. Particulars relating only to the county of Fife are not available, but in the board's areas of Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy, which together cover the counties of Fife and Kinross, the combined percentage was about pi, while for the two areas separately the percentages were about 30 and 32 respectively.

Mr. Logan: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is now in a position to make a statement as regards the monetary concession the Unemployment Assistance Board are prepared to make to the unemployed in Coronation week?

Mr. Brown: I expect to be in a position to make a statement on this subject in the near future.

Mr. T. Williams: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that, where an ex-service unemployed person is in receipt of £1 per week disability pension, 4s. is being deducted as representing an allowance for the wife; and whether the Unemployment Assistance Board have considered such a deduction in the light of recent Regulations?

Mr. Brown: No such deduction is made in the case of a disability pension of or less which does not include a supplementary allowance for dependants. When there is such a supplementary allowance the board have no authority for leaving it out of account.

Mr. Williams: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that deductions have taken place and that cases have been sent to the Ministry of Labour showing that the 4s. referred to in the question have actually been deducted since 1937 came in?

Mr. Brown: No, I am not aware of that, but I am aware that the law makes it quite plain in Section 38 (3, b) of the 1934 Act.

Mr. Williams: As deductions of this 4s. have taken place and cases have been sent to the right hon. Gentleman's Department, will he see that the area officers are circularised on that point?

Mr. Brown: As the hon. Member has sent me cases, I will have them inquired into, and if he has a special case to send in, I will have that inquired into; but that is the law.

Mr. Messer: May I ask the Minister whether he will speak a little more slowly, as it is most difficult to catch what he says?

Mr. T. Williams: asked the Minister of Labour in how many cases where young men and women have been found work in the Birmingham area by the Birmingham association for the relief of distressed areas the Unemployment Assistance Board have assisted parents to follow their children; and what was the nature of the assistance given?

Mr. Brown: It is not possible in all instances to identify cases with which this association has been connected, but since the inception of the scheme, application has been made to the Unemployment Assistance Board in the Birmingham area in 21 cases in respect of parents who have rejoined their children under the family removal scheme. In six of the cases the head of the household found work shortly after arrival and no special action was taken; in 11 others, special financial assistance by way of adjustment of allowance has been given by the board while in the remaining four cases the circumstances of the reunited household have been such that no special action has been regarded as necessary.

Mr. Williams: When a son or daughter has left South Wales or the North-East Coast, having found a situation in Birmingham, and the parents have followed, has the application of the means test been deferred in any case?

Mr. Brown: That is another question. I have answered the question put by the hon. Member, and if he wishes me to answer this question, perhaps he will put it down.

Mr. Williams: Will the Minister be good enough to tell us what he means when he says that financial assistance has been rendered to 11 families?

Mr. Brown: If I am asked, I will certainly do so, but I have answered the question on the Paper.

TRAINING AND INSTRUCTIONAL CENTRES.

Major Herbert: asked the Minister of Labour how many men attended, respectively, training centres and instruction centres in South Wales; and what percentage obtained employment from each of these classes of centre?

Mr. E. Brown: There are two centres in South Wales, at Pentrebach and at Brechfa, near Llandilo. The former is a preparatory centre where the training is designed to fit men for vocational training and, up to the end of January, 1937, 786 men had been transferred to Government training centres for this purpose. Information as to the number of these men who obtained employment is not available, but the percentage is probably not below the average for the whole country, namely, 97 per cent. Brechfa is an instructional centre and the number of men who have been admitted there is 3,140, of whom all but a small proportion came from South Wales. Approximately, 16 per cent. entered employment either direct from the centre or after transfer to a centre in England.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Do I gather from the Minister that 97 per cent. of the men sent to the instructional centre at Brechfa have been provided with employment?

Mr. Brown: No, that is not the answer. The first part of the answer referred to the centre at Pentrebach.

NUTRITION AND HEALTH TRAINING.

Miss Ward: asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the success of the nutrition and special health training experiment carried out on certain selected recruits, he will examine the details of the scheme with the object of formulating a plan for use on unemployed men who are below a proper standard of health?

Mr. E. Brown: I will consider my hon. Friend's suggestion.

Miss Ward: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake that after he has considered the suggestion he will give his considered opinion to the House?

Mr. Brown: I will consider the suggestion first.

INTERNATIONAL LABOUR OFFICE (MIGRATION COMMITTEE).

Sir Robert Young: asked the Minister of Labour whether he can give any information on the results of the work of the Permanent Emigration Committee of the International Labour Office; whether His Majesty's Government have been consulted as to the interest it would attach to a meeting of a conference of experts


on the subject of immigration both as it affects European and Latin American countries, with a view to a settlement; and, if so, what reply was given?

Mr. E. Brown: The Permanent Migration Committee of the Governing Body of the International Labour Office met on 16th and 17th November, 1936, and adopted a report which included a recommendation that the members of the organisation should be consulted as to the interest they would attach to a conference of the kind referred to in the question. This report is to be considered by the Governing Body at its meeting which opens in Geneva to-day.

Sir R. Young: Will the right hon. Gentleman, when consultations take place, remember that it is only by international arrangements that the man-hunger of the Dominions can be satisfied?

Mr. Brown: Yes, but the hon. Member will understand that that is premature at the moment. We do not know whether the Governing Body will decide to consult the States Members.

WAGE INCREASES (STATISTICS).

Mr. Thorne: asked the Minister of Labour what were the total amount of wage increases and the number of wage-earners affected negotiated by the trade unions and the employers' organisations for the year ended 1936; the total number and the amount of increases of wages regulated by the cost-of-living scale in accordance with the Board of Trade Gazette calculations; and the total number and the amount of wage increases given by employers after agreement has been reached by the employers' organisations and the trade unions?

Mr. E. Brown: The available information on this subject is published on pages 3 to 5 of the January issue of the Ministry of Labour Gazette, a copy of which I am sending to the hon. Member.

ROYAL NAVY (STAFF CONDITIONS, MALTA).

Mr. Kelly: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that under the agreement between the Government and the staff side of the Civil Service

National Whitley Council a tribunal has been instituted to arbitrate on appropriate matters in dispute between the administration and the staffs of Government Departments; that the staff organisation concerned, having failed to obtain a reply from the Admiralty between the period July to November to its request that there should be arbitration on the question of the pay of locally-entered staffs at Malta by the industrial court, has now asked the Admiralty to agree to arbitration by the Civil Service arbitration tribunal, but is still unable to secure any reply from that Department; and whether he is prepared to agree that the industrial relations machinery of his Department shall be utilised forthwith to decide the matters in issue between the Board of Admiralty and the locally-entered staffs at Malta?

Mr. E. Brown: As stated yesterday by my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty a communication will be sent by him to the association in the course of the next few days.

AIR RAID PRECAUTIONS.

Mr. Porritt: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how far preparations for the storage of gas-masks have progressed; and whether he can state the maximum number it is intended to store in any one warehouse which will allow of their expeditious distribution in time of emergency?.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): Two regional store depots for the storage of gas masks have been acquired, one at Manchester and one in the London district. These have between them a capacity of about 4,000,000 gas-masks and facilities for their inspection and preservation. Eleven more regional store depots will be needed and urgent steps are being taken to obtain them. The system of distribution from these regional store depots is now under investigation and it is hoped that a suitable working arrangement will he devised which will include the use of local store depots, each with a capacity of about 30,000 gas-masks. Ultimately the regional depots will be used to house the reserves of gas-masks and of other stores required in connection with air raid precautions, some of which are of a bulky character.

Mr. Thorne: Is it not the case that these gas-masks will have very much deteriorated before the war starts?

Hon. Members: We hope so.

Mr. Lloyd: No, Sir; special technical precautions have been taken so that these gas-masks will not deteriorate.

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Home Secretary what steps are being taken to adapt parts of homes and places of work in London and other centres so as to convert them into shelters which are gas-proof and splinter-proof?

Mr. Lloyd: The adaptation of rooms and other places as air raid shelters would for the most part fall to be carried out when the risk of air attack appeared to be imminent. Information on the steps to be taken is contained, as regards industrial premises, in a handbook for factories and business premises already published by the Air Raid Precautions Department. As regards private houses, a certain amount of information has already been given in the handbook called "Personal Protection against Gas." I am sending the hon. Member a copy of each of these publications. More detailed information as regards private houses will be given in a handbook which is in an advanced state of preparation. The structural aspects of air raid shelters in new buildings are under examination.

Mr. Henderson: Will not the provision of these shelters be too late when the risks are imminent?

Mr. Lloyd: I think the hon. Gentleman and I are a little at cross purposes. I was referring to shelters in the sense of rooms in private houses and factories being made gas-proof and splinter-proof. If private persons carry out the advice contained in the publication which will be issued shortly, to ear-mark a room in each house for this purpose, the actual preparations which will have to be made at the time will not take long.

Mr. Sandys: Will the Government consider the desirability of obtaining powers enabling them to insist, in connection with the erection of new factories, on gas-proof and bomb-proof shelters being provided?

Mr. Lloyd: I would like notice of that question.

Mr. Logan: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether any attempt is being made to make this place gas-proof?

LIQUOR TRAFFIC (STATE CONTROL).

Mr. Lovat-Fraser: asked the Home Secretary how many motor cars are used by the management of the State traffic in liquor in Carlisle for the purposes of their business?

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir John Simon): Five.

SENTENCES, WORKSOP.

Mr. T. Williams: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will take an early opportunity to review the sentences passed at the Worksop court on Howarth miners for alleged breaches of the peace; and, in view of the circumstances obtaining in the area where a strike is in progress, will he consider remitting part of the sentences?

Sir J. Simon: The Home Secretary is not authorised to act as a court of appeal for the purpose of reviewing sentences. My duty is limited to considering whether in any particular case there are special grounds which would justify me in advising that the prerogative of mercy should be exercised. I know of no such grounds in the cases to which the hon. Member refers.

Mr. Williams: Has the right hon. Gentleman examined these cases at all, and, if so, is he not aware that the crime of these men was merely a minor indiscretion; and for the purpose of creating "sweet reasonableness" in the district; and if he has not reviewed these cases, will he do so with a view to exercising clemancy?

Sir J. Simon: I have looked at the schedule which contains all the cases and the punishments which were inflicted by the court. I have read some material about the cases but I will gladly look into the matter further.

Mr. Lawson: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to give the legal position in this area his special attention as the owner


of the colliery concerned is chairman of the county council and is in very close touch with the chief constable?

Hon. Members: Order.

WORMWOOD SCRUBS PRISON.

Mr. Kelly: asked the Home Secretary what were the circumstances of the transfer in November, 1935, from Wakefield Prison to Wormwood Scrubs Prison of Cecil Chapman, serving a sentence of three years' penal servitude for forgery; whether other prisoners serving terms of penal servitude have been transferred to Wormwood Scrubs; and who paid the cost of Cecil Chapman's removal to Wormwoood Scrubs for a period of 17 weeks?

Sir J. Simon: The prisoner in question was transferred temporarily to Wormwood Scrubs Prison in pursuance of an order under Section 11 of the Prison Act, 1898, directing his production to give evidence in criminal proceedings then pending in London, and he was re-transferred after the conclusion of those proceedings. It is not uncommon for a prisoner who is in a prison at a distance to be transferred temporarily to a London prison if his presence is required to give evidence, but I could not say without detailed inquiry in how many cases such transfers have occurred. Such small expenses as may be involved normally fall upon the Prison Vote.

Mr. Kelly: Will the right hon. Gentleman look further into the case and see whether it is necessary for this man to be here for as long a period as 17 weeks in order to give evidence?

Sir J. Simon: I will look into that.

Mr. Kelly: asked the Home Secretary the number of officers who in 1936 were removed from duty at Wormwood Scrubs prison; and what were the reasons assigned for such removal?

Sir J. Simon: During 1936, 16 officers —excluding those who retired on superannuation—ceased duty at Wormwood Scrubs prison. Of these, 11 left on promotion or transfer to other establishments for service reasons; three resigned (two of them giving the reason that they wished to take up other work); and the engagements of two were terminated during the probationary period as not being fully qualified for the post of prison officer.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

METROPOLITAN POLICE (TRAFFIC DUTY).

Mr. Day: asked the Home Secretary the number of hours considered as duty period in which police constables are employed in the Metropolitan police area on traffic duty; and the number of cases during the previous three years in which evidence has been submitted to him of illness or overstrain resulting from the length of this duty period?

Sir J. Simon: The maximum daily period during which constables are employed on traffic duty is eight hours with a break of half-an-hour for refreshment. No cases have been recorded in which illness or overstrain has been attributed to the length of this duty period.

Mr. Day: Does the eight-hour rule apply also to men who are on point duty at congested places?

Sir J. Simon: I have answered the question on the Paper and I am afraid I could not answer the supplementary question without notice.

Mr. Day: Is the half-hour included or additional?

WESTWAY, HAMMERSMITH.

Commander Bower: asked the Home Secretary whether any obstruction to vehicular traffic occurred in Westway, Hammersmith, as a result of the demonstration by certain pedestrians on the afternoon of 31st January; whether any accidents resultant therefrom were reported to the police; and whether any prosecutions of motorists, pedestrians, or the organisers of the demonstration are contemplated?

Sir J. Simon: I am informed by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that vehicular traffic was somewhat impeded, but no serious obstruction was caused on the occasion in question. No accidents resulting from the demonstration were reported to the police; and no proceedings are contemplated against any motorist or pedestrian or against the organisers of the demonstration.

Commander Bower: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a number of motorists were threatened on this occasion by pedestrians in the neighbourhood; and can he say what gives rise to this indignation in that part of the world when it has


been remarkably free from accidents according to all the statistics that have been published?

Sir J. Simon: I cannot answer that.

ROAD ACCIDENTS.

Mr. Creech Jones: asked the Home Secretary in how many cases, for the last 12 months for which figures are available, proceedings were taken for manslaughter arising out of fatal road accidents; in how many cases were convictions registered; in how many cases of such convictions was sentence of imprisonment passed; and in how many cases were convictions quashed on appeal?

Sir J. Simon: According to the latest available information the number of cases in 1936 in which a motor traffic fatality resulted in a committal for trial for manslaughter was 95. In six of these cases the result of the trial is not yet known. In 20 cases there was a conviction of manslaughter and in 19 of those cases a sentence of imprisonment was imposed. I am not yet in a position to say in how many cases, if any, there was a successful appeal against conviction.

Mr. Silverman: asked the Home Secretary whether he will now consider making arrangements for police reports of street accidents to be made available to an injured person, or the relatives of one killed, without the payment of a fee of 10s. which is often beyond the means of poor people to pay?

Sir J. Simon: It has been the practice for some years for chief officers of police to exercise their discretion to reduce or waive this charge in all suitable cases, particularly where the full charge would involve hardships, and I have no reason to suppose that this practice does not work satisfactorily.

Mr. Silverman: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire as to the proportion of cases in which there has been any waiver or remission of the fee, and if that has been done in only a small number of cases will he reconsider the question of totally abolishing the fee?

Sir J. Simon: As I have said, each chief officer of police has a discretion in this matter, but I will gladly look further into

the question, and perhaps the hon. Member will give me any information he may have.

PRESS INQUIRIES.

Sir Assheton Pownall: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware of two further recent cases of persecution by members of the Press; that in one case the coroner commented on a Press photographer's disregard of the decencies of the case and in the other the coroner censured members of the Press for behaving callously to a young girl whose fiancé had been found gassed; and whether he will take further steps to compel the Newspaper Proprietors' Association to stop the suffering caused by these intrusions by their representatives?

Sir Percy Hurd: asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to a case in the St. Pancras coroner's court last Friday when it appeared that a journalist and a Press photographer obtained admission to St. Mary's Hospital, Islington, and the coroner commented on their scant regard for decencies in their treatment of a dying patient; also to a case when the North Dorset coroner last week censured Press representatives for having treated a young girl callously after the suicide of her fiancé in order to make a sensational story for their papers; and whether, seeing the recurrence of such cases, the Government will give facilities for the passage of the Journalists (Registration) Bill, now before the House, whereby such conduct would come under disciplinary review by a body representative of all branches of the journalistic profession?

Sir J. Simon: As I indicated in reply to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) last week, I am in communication with the Newspaper Proprietors' Association and the Newspaper Society on the whole subject, and I am sending those bodies these further instances of complaint.

Sir A. Pownall: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will not in this and similar cases of this sort communicate with the coroners concerned and find out which of the Press agencies or journals are continuing activities of this sort, with a view to communicating if necessary with the editors of the papers concerned?

Sir J. Simon: I think I am right in saying that we did communicate with the coroner in one of these cases to confirm the facts, but I am not sure that we asked what the newspaper was, or whether the coroner would necessarily know. I think the subject is one of rather general importance and ought to be regarded as such.

Mr. Shinwell: As the universal opinion in this House seems to be disregarded by the newspapers, could not the right hon. Gentleman take further and more drastic action in the matter?

Sir J. Simon: I think the right thing to do, having communicated with these two important bodies, is to await their full reply. As I have said, I am reminding them that other cases are now being quoted and am sending those cases to them for their further consideration.

Earl Winterton: Will my right hon. Friend communicate with the Newspaper Proprietors' Association and draw attention to the fact that there is such a rising indignation among those affected by these people who exploit human grief, that there is serious danger of a breach of the peace being created?

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the journalists and photographers who are sent upon these tasks detest being sent upon them, and that the responsibility lies fairly and squarely upon the shoulders of the proprietors of the newspapers?

Mr. Storey: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind in considering this matter that the great bulk of the Press deplore these methods as much as anybody else, and will he, while bearing in mind that they would welcome steps to restrain the licence of a section of the Press, see that the liberty of the Press is safeguarded? Will he also bear in mind that the Bill referred to has not the support of the great majority of working journalists?

GERMAN EMBASSY (REPAIRS, LABOUR).

Mr. Hicks: asked the Home Secretary whether he has any information as to the rates of pay and working conditions of the 120 German building operatives now employed at the German Embassy

and whether they are paid in British currency; the number of applications received for permits for the entry into this country of these German workmen; and the actual number of permits granted and the dates thereof?

Sir J. Simon: I have no information about the matters raised in the first part of the question. Permission has been given up to the present for the temporary admission of 145 German workmen for work on the German Embassy, and of these 16 have already returned to Germany. Sixty-six arrived in batches during November, 40 in December, and the balance on various dates up to and including the 1st instant. Since the hon. Member raised this matter on 28th January the Foreign Office has been in communication with the German Embassy and has received the assurance that only a few more men will be required to complete the work.

Mr. Hicks: Is it impossible for the Home Secretary to tell us how many permits have been granted? The same question was put last week and I am asking again now whether permits have been granted in these cases?

Sir J. Simon: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman did not catch the beginning of my answer. I said that permission has been given up to the present for the temporary admission of 145 German workmen.

Mr. Hicks: Do I understand that permits have been granted in those cases?

Sir J. Simon: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Hicks: Then cannot the right hon. Gentleman get the information as to the rates of wages and conditions under which these men have been employed? Are they being paid any wages at all, or are they just being kept and will they have their wages, if any, paid when they get back to Germany? Is that not a violation of the Truck Act? Is it not possible for us to have some information why these 150 building trade operatives were brought into this country when there are any number of men capable of doing the same class of work at the Employment Exchanges?

Mr. Leckie: What about the international brotherhood?

Sir J. Simon: I will see whether the information can be ascertained, but I am


sure the hon. Member will appreciate that while the Home Office is naturally able to answer whether permits have been given, it is not ordinarily within the scope of the Home Office to ascertain when a permit is given what the rate of wages is. I have no reason to think that wages have not been paid.

Mr. Hicks: Will the right hon. Gentleman inform the hon. Member behind him on the question of international brotherhood that we are willing to acknowledge it as long as trade union standards are being observed, but not Nazi standards?

Sir Percy Harris: Is the importation of men to make alterations in Embassies in accordance with precedent and practice? Do we follow this practice in making alterations to British Embassies abroad?

Sir J. Simon: That question was put as a Supplementary question the other day, and I replied by saying that I was not exactly informed, but that we should certainly expect reasonable courtesy if it were necessary in respect of any of our Embassies abroad.

PENTONVILLE PRISON.

Mr. Creech Jones: asked the Home Secretary whether any further consideration has been given to the provision of an alternative modern and sanitary prison in the place of Pentonville?

Sir J. Simon: This question has been frequently considered, but in view of the difficulty of providing alternative accommodation I am unable to hold out any prospect that it will be possible to discontinue the use of Pentonville Prison. I recognise that it would be advantageous if another prison could be opened in a less crowded area, but I know of no reason for complaint as to the sanitary condition of Pentonville.

STATUTE, HENRY VIII (REPEAL).

Mr. John: asked the Home Secretary whether he will introduce legislation to repeal at an early date the statute 27 Henry VIII, c. 26, s. 20, which provides that any person or persons holding any office or fees in England or Wales must upon pain of forfeiture use and exercise the English language?

Sir J. Simon: The hon. Member will be relieved to know that the enactment to which he refers was repealed 50 years ago by the Statute Law Revision Act, 1887.

CARDIGANSHIRE ASSIZES (JUROR'S NON-ATTENDANCE).

Mr. John: asked the Home Secretary whether he has seen the report of the case of Mr. John Herbert, Troedyrhiw, Bwlchyllan, Cardiganshire, who was fined £1 by Mr. Justice Lawrence at the Cardiganshire Assizes, held at Lam-peter, on 25th January, because he did not respond to his name when the jurors list was called on 23rd January; whether, as Mr. Herbert's absence was due entirely to misunderstanding and ignorance, he will take steps to ascertain whether the misunderstanding could have been avoided if the communication had been made in Welsh; and whether, if that proves to have been the case, he will remit the fine?

Sir J. Simon: I have no information as to this case, and the matter is not one in which I have any jurisdiction. Provision is made in Section 12 of the Juries Act, 1862, whereby a fine imposed on a juror for non-attendance may be remitted on application being made in proper form to the court by which the fine was imposed.

FACTORY DEPARTMENT (ANNUAL REPORT).

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Home Secretary whether he can arrange for the publication of the annual report of the Factory Department at an earlier date than has been the case hitherto?

Sir J. Simon: As the hon. Member is aware, the preparation of this volume involves considerable labour, and I am afraid I can hold out no prospect of any substantial change in the time of publication without drastically shortening the report.

Mr. Davies: Does it not seem strange that nearly every other Government Department is able to issue its report earlier than the Factory Department?

Sir J. Simon: I have no doubt the hon. Gentleman's recollection will serve him that that was so in his time.

SPAIN.

Mr. W. Roberts: asked the Home Secretary on what date he learnt that there was being organised within the Irish Free State by General O'Duffy an expedition to fight against the Government in Spain; whether and when he also learnt that appeals were being made to men in Ireland, contrary to the Foreign Enlistment Act, 1870, as interpreted by His Majesty's Government in Great Britain; what steps he took to prevent this expedition or any men in it using the territory or ports of Great Britain as a base for departure for Spain; and, in particular, were steps taken to prevent General O'Duffy and certain of his adherents sailing from Liverpool?

Sir J. Simon: The Home Office had no previous information on the points referred to in the first two parts of the question. As regards the remainder, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to a similar question by the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) on 21st January.

Mr. Roberts: Was the expedition that was organised considered to be contrary to the Foreign Enlistment Act, 1870, and, if so, why was no action taken against it?

Sir J. Simon: If the hon. Member will refer to the answer I gave the other day he will see what I said.

Sir Nairne Stewart Sandeman: What action was taken to prevent people from this island going out to help the Reds?

Sir Ronald Ross: Is my right hon. Friend aware there are other members of the Irish Republican Army who are showing the impartiality of the Irish Free State by fighting on the other side?

FACTORIES BILL.

Mr. Watkins: asked the Home Secretary whether he will issue a White Paper for the guidance of Members setting out the additions to the law incorporated in the new Factories Bill?

Sir J. Simon: Yes, Sir, a White Paper for this purpose has been presented, and should be available for Members this evening.

GAME-COURSING (CHEETAHS).

Mr. Messer: asked the Home Secretary whether he has considered the communication sent to him to the effect that a Mr. K. C. Gandar Dower has brought a team of recently-captured cheetahs to England to be used for coursing with live game; and if he will inquire into the matter with a view to prohibiting this new form of cruelty?

Sir J. Simon: The control of the admission of live animals into this country does not rest with my Department. As a result of the communication referred to, I made inquiries and am informed that 12 cheetahs are now in this country in quarantine for six months, but I have no information of the purpose for which they were imported.

Mr. Messer: In view of the question, will the right hon. Gentleman address himself to seeing that this purpose is prohibited?

Sir J. Simon: For my part, I should certainly do all I could to enforce the law against cruelty to dumb animals, but I do not know anything about this particular case.

Mr. Logan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that "cheaters" have often been seen on these tracks before?

FASCIST PREMISES (POLICE PROTECTION).

Mr. Rathbone: asked the Home Secretary how many policemen are employed as a whole-time occupation to protect Fascist premises in Great Smith Street and elsewhere; and what contribution towards the financial cost of this is made from the Fascist funds?

Sir J. Simon: I am informed by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that, since an attempt was made in October last to set fire to the Fascist premises in Green Street, Bethnal Green, a constable has been posted outside this building from 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. nightly. The second part of the question does not arise, since the duties performed by the constable are ordinary protection duties which would be afforded to any premises in similar circumstances.

Sir P. Harris: This question concerns Great Smith Street, and not Green Street.

Sir J. Simon: I said that an attempt had been made to set fire to Fascist premises in Green Street, Bethnal Green, and that is quite correct.

Mr. Thurtle: The right hon. Gentleman did not say whether the premises in Great Smith Street are being protected.

Sir J. Simon: I will inquire about that. I do not know the geography of these places as well as some of my hon. Friends appear to know it.

POLICE COLLEGE, HENDON.

Lieut.-Commonder Fletcher: asked the Home Secretary whether, in connection with the removal of the police college from Hendon, the expenditure at Hendon of £20,300 on buildings, £5,400 on furnishing, £4,000 on the grounds, £2,800 on the police laboratory, and £3,650 on equipment of the mess, must be regarded as a total loss or, if not, how much must be regarded as a loss?

Sir J. Simon: The figures given relate to the financial year 1934–35 and represent only part of the capital expenditure in question. There is no reason to regard any of this expenditure as a dead loss. On the removal of the college from Hendon the buildings and grounds which it now occupies, together with furniture and equipment, except so far as these may be transferred to the new college building, will be used for the proposed new training school or other police purposes. There is at present no proposal for the removal of the police laboratory from Hendon.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Is it not a serious reflection upon the wisdom of the authorities concerned that this heavy expenditure should have been incurred upon premises which have been so quickly found to be unsuitable for their purpose?

Sir J. Simon: No, I do not think so.

Lieut.-Commonder Fletcher: asked the Home Secretary what was the capital cost of establishing the police college at Hendon; what pay and allowances are received by trainees; if any allowances are paid in respect of wives or rent; what is the cost per officer trained, taking the capital expenditure on the college, the establishment and upkeep charges of the college, and the

pay and allowances of trainees all into account; and whether he is aware that, in evidence given before the Public Accounts Committee in 1936, it was not disputed that the total cost of training a police officer for two years at Hendon was £1,500?

Sir J. Simon: This question can only properly be answered by giving a large number of figures and explaining the relation between them. I will circulate detailed figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT, but I may say now that the hon. and gallant Member is mistaken in the suggestion contained in the last part of his question.

Following are the figures:

The capital expenditure incurred in purchasing, adapting and equipping the buildings and grounds used for the purposes of the college at Hendon is approximately £110,000. Those admitted to the college from outside receive £170 per annum in pay. Those who come from the force receive £200 per annum less 5 per cent. pension deduction, or their existing pay, if greater, together with any allowances (such as rent allowance) to which they may be entitled under the police regulations, and also, if married men, separation allowances. The period of training has recently been extended from 15 months to two years, and, if all the items of capital expenditure referred to by the hon. and gallant Member are included, the cost of the training at the college for two years, on the basis of 60 students—the number now there—works out at £900 per student, exclusive of pay and allowances which may be taken to average £200 a year.

CAPTAIN MACMICHAEL (IMPRISONMENT).

Mr. Messer: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that Captain MacMichael, the honorary director of the Performing and Captive Animals Defence League, has been committed to prison in consequence of his activities in defence of animals; and when he is likely to be released, as he has not been sentenced to any specific term of imprisonment?

Sir J. Simon: I find that Captain MacMichael was committed to prison by


the Judge of a County Court for contempt of court. I have no authority to order his release—that is a matter for the Judge.

Mr. Messer: But is it not possible to find out how long he is likely to be in prison?

Sir J. Simon: He will be in prison till he purges his contempt.

INSTRUMENT OF ABDICATION.

Mr. Porritt: asked the Prime Minister where the original of the Instrument of Abdication, executed by King Edward VIII, has been placed; and whether he will make such provision that this document shall be preserved in the Palace of Westminster and made accessible to the public in the same manner as other historical Parliamentary documents?

The Prime Minister (Mr. Baldwin): So far as the United Kingdom is concerned the Instrument to which my hon. Friend refers has been placed in the Privy Council Register. The suggestion made in the second part of the question is one I do not feel able to adopt. The Instrument, however, in due course will be transferred to the Public Record Office which is its proper eventual repository, and subject to the Rules of the Master of the Rolls will become open to public inspection like other entries in the Register.

ROYAL DOCKYARDS (DISMISSALS).

Mr. Tinker: asked the Prime Minister whether he has considered the letter from the secretary of Leigh Labour Club informing him of a resolution carried at a meeting of the members asking him to reconsider the position of the five discharged dockyard workers; and will he say whether he will accede to the request?

The Prime Minister: I have received a copy of the communication referred to by the hon. Member, but I have nothing to add to what I have already said on this subject.

Mr. Tinker: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the defence which he put up on 26th January is the worst which he has ever made from that Box?

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

PHYSICAL TRAINING ORGANISERS.

Mr. Gordon Macdonald: asked the President of the Board of Education the number of physical training organisers in employment in the schools of England and Wales, giving separate figures for Lancashire?

The President of the Board of Education (Mr. Oliver Stanley): There are 236 organisers of physical training in England and Wales, employed by 170 local education authorities. In the geographical county of Lancashire there are 28 organisers, employed by 17 local education authorities. The county local education authority has recently appointed two organisers.

HEAD TEACHERS.

Mr. G. Macdonald: asked the President of the Board of Education the number of head teachers responsible for any one class, giving separate figures for Lancashire; and whether any action is being taken to render this unnecessary?

Mr. Stanley: In England and Wales on 31st March, 1936, there were 17,409 head teachers (out of a total of 29,479) in charge of a class. The corresponding figures for Lancashire were 1,485 and 3,177. The number and proportion of head teachers in charge of a class are decreasing year by year, and I do not think any special action is called for at the present time.

SECONDARY SCHOOL SCHOLARSHIPS (EXAMINATIONS).

Mr. G. Macdonald: asked the President of the Board of Education whether, in view of the number of schools closed and the number of teachers and scholars affected by the influenza epidemic, he will consider the advisability of postponing the examinations for scholarships for entrance into secondary schools which are due to take place in the near future?

Mr. Stanley: This is a matter for the local education authorities and governing bodies who are responsible for making the arrangements. They are, I know, alive to the importance of securing that children are not penalised from this cause.

Mr. Macdonald: Will the President of the Board of Education himself take what


action he can—I realise his limitations—in order to prevent any child being handicapped in such circumstances?

Mr. Stanley: I think the action of the hon. Member in asking this question and the publicity which has thus been given to the matter will bring it to the attention of local authorities.

Sir R. Young: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman make recommendations?

Mr. Stanley: I do not think that will be necessary. I think the local authorities are fully alive to the position.

MEDICAL INSPECTIONS (RECORDS).

Mr. Day: asked the President of the Board of Education what regulations are in force regarding the length of time local authorities should keep records of medical inspections of children during the time they were at school after they have left school; and whether these are preserved or destroyed?

Mr. Stanley: The board have issued no regulations on the subject, but when asked for advice by local education authorities they have recommended that the records of medical inspection should be retained for about five years after the child leaves school, and they understand that this is the usual practice; for example, in London the records are kept until the child's eighteenth birthday, and in Birmingham for a period of five years.

Sir Francis Fremantle: Will provision be made for the use of these records by factory inspectors or other officers of the factory inspectorate?

TEACHERS' SALARIES.

Mr. Ralph Beaumont: asked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that, according to the terms of the current Burnham scales, additional initial payments are made to teachers who have taken a recognised post-graduate diploma course following a three years' course in a university or university college, but that this increment is not paid to such teachers as have taken a diploma course following a three years' degree course in a technical college; that students from these colleges have obtained appointments in elementary and secondary schools but have not received the additional initial payments referred to, and whether he will take steps to remove

this anomaly in the drafting of any new scales that may be agreed upon?

Mr. Stanley: In this matter there is a distinction between teachers in elementary schools and those in secondary and technical schools. The initial increment to which my hon. Friend refers is payable only to graduate teachers in secondary schools and technical institutions who have satisfactorily completed a year of training in teaching, in addition to three years study for a degree in a technical college. My attention has not been called to any case of teachers not receiving these salary increments. I understand that the matter, in so far as it relates to teachers in elementary schools, is about to be considered by the appropriate Burnham Committee.

NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.

Mr. Muff: asked the Minister of Health when he proposes to introduce legislation to provide for non-manual workers with wages up to £400 per year being included in the national insurance schemes?

The Minister of Health (Sir Kingsley Wood): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the question asked yesterday by my hon. Friend the Member for West Leeds (Mr. V. Adams).

Mr. Short: asked the Minister of Health the total number of insured persons who received sickness or disablement benefit during 1936; the percentage due to rheumatism; the total sickness benefit paid in consequence of this complaint; and whether the figures indicate a decline or otherwise as compared with previous years?

Sir K. Wood: I regret to say that the information asked for by the hon. Member is not available.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC HEALTH.

PAPWORTH SANATORIUM.

Mr. Rowson: asked the Minister of Health the number of patients who have been in Papworth tuberculosis sanatorium and returned home, and have died within one year of returning home during the last seven years?

Sir K. Wood: I have caused special inquiries to be made in this matter by one


of the medical officers of the Ministry, but I regret to say that the information desired by the hon. Member is not available.

PHYSICAL TRAINING.

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the fact that in America and other countries insurance companies spend large sums on health education, he has examined the possibility of securing the co-operation of British insurance companies in the proposed national campaign for health education and physical training; and whether he proposes to invite the insurance companies to contribute towards the cost of the national campaign?

Sir K. Wood: The general question of health education and propaganda is now tinder consideration, but I understand that some work of this nature is already undertaken by insurance companies and I should certainly welcome its extension.

Mr. Davies: Would the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the campaign will obviously benefit the insurance companies who deal with industrial policies?

Sir K. Wood: On the other hand, the length of life, as the hon. Gentleman is aware, is not satisfactory, I believe, so far as the annuity side of the business is concerned.

HONEY (ADULTERATION).

Mr. Turton: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that preparations of sugar or glucose with a small percentage of the product of the honeybee are being sold under the designation of honey; and whether he will introduce legislation in order to give a legal definition of honey and to restrict the designation "honey" to the produce from plants and flowers as gathered, stored, and ripened by the honey-bee which shall not contain added sugar, glucose, or any other foreign substitute?

Commander Bower: asked the Minister of Health whether, having regard to the fact that preparations of sugar, glucose, and other ingredients with a small percentage of honey are being sold under the description of honey, he will take steps to ensure that the word honey on labels, in advertisements, or in any other respect is confined to the natural product of the

honey-bee extracted from plants and flowers, and that the label on any container should not suggest pictorially that the contents are the unadulterated product of the honey-bee when this is not so?

Mr. Hannah: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware of the indignation felt by bee-keepers that preparations consisting almost wholly of sugar may legally be sold as honey; and whether he will consider taking steps to limit that word to the genuine product of bees?

Sir K. Wood: Representations have been made to me with regard to preparations of the kind referred to, and a deputation from the British Bee-Keepers' Association has recently discussed the matter with my Department. I hope that it may be possible to introduce legislation relating to the composition and description of articles of food on the lines recommended by the Departmental Committee which has reported upon that subject, and which would include provisions dealing with the matter raised by my hon. Friends.

PUBLIC ASSISTANCE (BLOCK GRANT).

Mr. W. Joseph Stewart: asked the Minister of Health in view of the forthcoming revision of the block-grant formula, whether a special weighting based on the number of persons relieved by the public assistance committee will be applied to the calculation of the block grant; and whether he has taken into consideration the question of granting addiional money above the block grant to be devoted entirely to those local authorities with an excessive public assistance rate?

Sir K. Wood: I must ask the hon. Member to await the report of the investigation into the method of distribution of block grants which I hope to lay before Parliament shortly.

Mr. Stewart: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration the fact that the Poor Law rate in Durham County is three times the average rate throughout the country?

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

BURNING PIT-HEAPS.

Mr. Tinker: asked the Minister of Health whether the inspector of alkali


works has made a recent report to him of the state of burning pit-heaps; and whether the owners of coal mines are trying to put out those already on fire and taking effective measures to prevent accumulations of inflammable matter that may cause fires?

Sir K. Wood: Yes, Sir. I am informed that owners of pits which have been visited are usually willing to adopt the alkali inspectors' suggestions for dealing with fires and for preventing further fires in future.

Mr. Tinker: Will there be an opportunity to raise this question in the Debate on the right hon. Gentleman's salary?

Sir K. Wood: I will consider that point and communicate with the hon. Member.

PIT-HEAD BATHS (RATING).

Mr. Short: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that there is a lack of uniformity in the methods of assessing pit-head baths for rating purposes; whether he has consulted with the Miners' Welfare Committee; and whether he proposes to offer any advice to local rating authorities?

Sir K. Wood: Questions of uniformity in valuation for rates are primarily matters for consideration by the Central Valuation Committee, the statutory body appointed under the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925, for that purpose, and I have no jurisdiction which would enable me to intervene. I understand that the Committee have been in touch with the Miners' Welfare Committee on this matter and have endeavoured to find a uniform basis acceptable to all the local authorities concerned, but that, owing to differing local circumstances, some of the local authorities have not yet found themselves able to accept the basis suggested.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

LOCAL AUTHORITIES' SCHEMES.

Captain Macnamara: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware of the inconvenience caused to local authorities by the long lapses of time between when they propose building schemes to his office and when the work can begin; and whether he will give assurances of more expedition?

Sir K. Wood: Every effort is made in my Department to deal with all building proposals as expeditiously as possible, but if my hon. Friend has any particular case in mind on which a decision has not yet been given, perhaps he would be good enough to let me have details.

Mr. R. C. Morrison: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the recent delay by his Department has resulted in prices going up and contractors being unable to carry out their obligations?

Sir K. Wood: No, Sir; I am not aware of that, but if the hon. Gentleman has any particular case perhaps he will bring it to my notice.

SPORADIC BUILDING.

Sir P. Harris: asked the Minister of Health in how many cases within the London and Home Counties area the responsible authorities have acted upon either paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) of Sub-section (2) of Section 16 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1932, with the purpose of controlling sporadic building; and whether he is satisfied that the legal powers of the local authorities under this or any other Act are adequate to control such sporadic building?

Sir K. Wood: I have no information in how many cases responsible authorities under operative planning schemes have acted under Section 16 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1932, as such cases would come to me only on an appeal against the authority's refusal of permission. Local authorities possess full powers to deal with sporadic building in accordance with the provisions of the Act.

Sir P. Harris: Would the right hon. Gentleman, in his capacity as Minister of Health, endeavour to collect this information in order to find out how far the Act has been functioning in Greater London?

Sir K. Wood: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Act has been in operation only a short time. I shall be glad to consider the suggestion after a little further interval has elapsed.

Sir P. Harris: Is it not essential to town planning that there should be immediate and proper action, and that while the right hon. Gentleman is waiting considerable damage may be done?

Sir K. Wood: I am not waiting. The hon. Baronet asked whether I would collect certain information, and I said I would not trouble the local authorities.

Sir P. Harris: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the public wants to know whether the local authorities are doing their duty and that we want the right hon. Gentleman to find out whether they are doing so?

Sir K. Wood: No, Sir; it is not the public who want to know: it is the hon. Baronet.

BETTERMENT (LONDON).

Sir P. Harris: asked the Minister of Health in how many cases within the Greater London area have local authorities succeeded in recovering betterment on account of increase in value of property caused by any scheme under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1932, in terms of Section 21; whether there has been any failure to collect betterment after an attempt has been made to do so; and, if so, what were the reasons for the failure?

Sir K. Wood: The period during which schemes made under the Act of 1932 have been in operation is necessarily short. Local authorities are under no obligation to inform me what action they take under Section 21 of the Act. I am not, therefore, in a position to give the information desired.

Sir P. Harris: Does the right hon. Gentleman think it is his job as Minister of Health to know nothing about what is going on and of what he ought to know? Is he not interested in his job, and is he aware that I am interested in the welfare of Greater London?

Sir K. Wood: Something seems to have upset the hon. Baronet. I am sure he realises that I do not want to trouble local authorities with unnecessary inquiries with regard to this matter.

BIRMINGHAM.

Mr. Smedley Crooke: asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been drawn to the methods adopted in some cases by the Birmingham Estates Department by which some landlords of property in the Emily Street area are rendered destitute owing to the local department's interpretation of the Housing

Act; and whether he will cause inquiries to be made in such cases of hardship so as to obtain equitable compensation for loss sustained and to avoid what amounts to confiscation of property?

Sir K. Wood: I have received no such complaints as my hon. Friend mentions. If he will send me particulars I shall be happy to look into them, and see if there is any action open to me to take.

Mr. Smedley Crooke: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in this area the arbitrator appointed by his Department granted only £1 compensation for 23 houses; is he further aware that since the decision, rents amounting to £50 have been collected from those houses, none of which has gone to the unfortunate owner?

Sir K. Wood: Perhaps my hon. Friend would give me full particulars.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC HEALTH.

RIVER POLLUTION (TRADE EFFLUENTS).

Mr. Short: asked the Minister of Health whether he has taken any steps under the Public Health Acts to ensure that in the construction of new factories provision is made for all trade effluents to pass into the local sewage system and thereby obviate the continued pollution of our streams and rivers?

Sir K. Wood: No, Sir. The Public Health Acts do not empower me to take action of this kind, but I propose shortly to introduce a Bill to facilitate arrangements for the reception of trade effluents into sewers.

WATERED MILK.

Mr. Lambert: asked the Minister of Health whether the milk sold in London, except for pasteurisation, is sold containing the natural amount of butter fat or whether it is watered down to comply with the legal limit?

Sir K. Wood: The addition of water to milk intended for sale is unlawful, and I find nothing in the recent reports of public analysts in London to show that the practice mentioned in the question is resorted to. If my right hon. Friend has any particular instance in mind and will furnish me with the necessary information, I will have inquiries made.

HEBDEN BRIDGE AND MYTHOLMROYD (AMALGAMATION).

Mr. McCorquodale: asked the Minister of Health whether he will consider the desirability of permitting existing local authorities to choose the name of any new authority caused by their amalgamation; whether he is aware that in the case of Hebden Bridge and of Mytholmroyd, in the West Riding of Yorkshire, the members of both urban district councils were in unanimous agreement upon the choice of a name for the new authority formed by their amalgamation; and whether he is aware that his refusal to accept their unanimous choice of name is causing considerable dissatisfaction and annoyance locally?

Sir K. Wood: Weight is always attached to the views of the local authorities in this matter, and I am at present considering communications which I have received from the local authorities concerned in the case mentioned in the second part of the question. I ought, however, to say that I attach importance to the avoidance of names which are over-cumbrous for the purposes of administration.

Mr. McCorquodale: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the local authority has again unanimously rejected his choice of names? I hope he will not overrule their decision again.

Mr. Sutcliffe: Is it not also of vital importance that the unanimous opinion of the two local authorities should be respected?

BLIND PERSONS.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that many persons who are suffering from defective vision, so serious as to render them totally incapable of earning their own living, are in many cases denied allowances on the ground that they are not totally blind; and what steps he proposes to take to remedy this injustice?

Sir K. Wood: No, Sir. The benefits for which provision is made under the Blind Persons Act are available to those persons who are so blind as to be unable to perform any work for which eyesight is essential, and I am not aware of any case in which such benefits have been refused on the ground that the applicant was not totally blind. If the hon. Mem-

ber has any case in mind and will communicate with me, I will make inquiries.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: Is the Minister aware that a great many of the local authorities hand over the care of these people to voluntary organisations and that this arrangement between the local authorities and the voluntary organisations does tend to the result to which this question draws attention?

Sir K. Wood: No, Sir, I am not aware of that. If the right hon. Gentleman will let me know of particular cases I will see what I can do.

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the hardship caused to blind persons by the rigid application of a means test to their claims for blind persons' pensions, he will consider placing these pensions on the same basis as old age pensions without any means test?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Chamberlain): No, Sir. There does not appear to the Government to be any adequate reason for exempting these particular pensions from the test of means which applies to all pensions granted under the Old Age Pensions Act.

Mr. Gallacher: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that blind people are very heavily handicapped and that the pension grant means a very great deal in helping them to overcome the handicap, and that it should not be subjected to a means test?

Mr. Chamberlain: Those considerations might apply to many other people.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE.

REPARATIONS AND WAR DEBTS.

Mr. Day: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the expected total revenue of the United Kingdom in respect of receipts from reparations and Allied War Debts for the three years ended December, 1936, and the total payments due from the United Kingdom to the United States of America for the same period?

Mr. Chamberlain: In reply to the first part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for the Plaistow division (Mr. Thorne) on 14th May, 1936, of which I am sending him a copy. In reply to the second part of the question, I would refer him to the War Debt Agree-


ment of 19th June, 1923 (Command Paper 1912) and the Moratorium Agreement of 4th June, 1932 (Command Paper 4202).

Mr. Day: Has nothing been received since 14th May, 1936?

ROYAL COMMISSION ON ARMAMENTS.

Sir Arnold Wilson: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the total cost of printing the evidence tendered to the Royal Commission on Armaments in instalments as the inquiry proceeded; and what net sum has hitherto been realised by sales thereof to the public?

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lieut.-Colonel Colville): The amounts in question are £1,692 and £475 respectively.

Sir A. Wilson: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman bear in mind that the Royal Commission on the Tyneside is probably of far greater importance, in respect of the evidence, than the Royal Commission on Armaments?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: That does not arise out of the question.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman consider asking the armament firms to defray the cost of publishing this report, in gratitude for the whitewashing which they received?

CIVIL SERVANTS (TRANSFERENCE).

Mr. Creech Jones: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, whether, in the event of the removal of civil servants from one part of the country to another, they have the freedom of choice in respect of moving their household goods or whether they are compelled to accept quotations from the railway companies?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: Civil servants compulsorily transferred from one part of the country to another are required to submit three competitive tenders in writing for the removal of their furniture, one of the tenders being from a railway company if the distance of transfer is 60 miles or more. Officers may accept whichever tender they choose, but payment from public funds is restricted to the amount of the lowest tender save for good reasons to the contrary.

CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS.

Mr. Tinker: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware of the growing number of wives of insured contributors under the Widows', Orphans', and Old Age Pensions Act who cannot get their pension when the husband reaches 65 years of age because they have not attained that age; and whether he will consider amending the Act so as to give pensions to this class if they are 60 years of age when the husband gets the pension?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: As the hon. Member is aware, similar proposals have been made on this subject from time to time, but it has not been found possible to adopt them.

Mr. Tinker: Is there any likelihood of the Government changing their mind on the matter?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: I am afraid I cannot add to my answer.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

MILK (REORGANISATION COMMISSION'S REPORT).

Mr. Hopkin: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he has considered the resolution submitted by the executive of the Carmarthen Farmers' Co-operative Society, Limited, representing 3,879 members, protesting against the Milk Reorganisation Commission's report; and whether he intends to submit this report to the consideration of the House?

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. W. S. Morrison): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The report of the Milk Reorganisation Commission is receiving the careful consideration of the Government, and the industry and the House will have an opportunity of discussing the Commission's recommendations if and when legislative proposals arising out of them are brought before it.

DEAD RABBITS (IMPORTS).

Captain Peter Macdonald: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to the widespread complaints of British farmers in regard to the importation into this country of dead rabbits; and whether he will reconsider the question of encouraging


the destruction of rabbits in this country by means of a scheme for controlling the imports of dead rabbits from abroad?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: As regards the first part of the question, I would point out that annual imports of dead rabbits have declined by more than half since 1934. As my hon. and gallant Friend will be aware, the whole problem of the better protection of agriculture and the land against the ravages of rabbits is at present under consideration by a Select Committee in another place.

Captain Macdonald: Has the Minister any idea when the Select Committee is likely to report?

Mr. Morrison: No, Sir, I cannot say.

Captain Macdonald: Is he proposing to allow the import of dead rabbits while rabbits in this country are causing this wholesale destruction?

Mr. Morrison: I do not think the importation of dead rabbits is a very important factor in the larger question.

Mr. T. Williams: Is the Minister not aware that in South Yorkshire, whenever a miner tries to rid a farmer of his rabbits, he gets three months' hard labour?

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

HOUSING (KIRKINTILLOCH).

Mr. Cassells: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of lets of houses under municipal control granted by the Kirkintilloch Town Council for the years 1934 to 1936, inclusive, and the number of lets granted by the council during the like period to persons living outwith the burgh; to single persons; to married couples with no families; and to persons occupying sub-let apartments?

PUBLIC ASSISTANCE—COUNTY OF DUNBARTON.



Number of sane persons (including dependants) in receipt of public assistance on 15th January, 1937.
Payment in respect of outdoor poor for week ending 9th January, 1937.



Indoor poor.
Outdoor poor.
Total.







£


County (excluding Burghs of Dumbarton and Clydebank).
81
4,809
4,890
1,518


Burghs of Dumbarton and Clydebank.
108
5,389
5,497
2,005


Total
189
10,198
10,387
3,523

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Wedderburn): I am informed that the town council let 385 houses in the period referred to. Of these, eight were let to persons living outside the burgh, including one married couple with no family; eight to single persons living within the burgh; 37 to other married couples with no families, of whom three were occupying sub-let apartments; and 14 to other married persons occupying sub-let apartments.

MILK (REORGANISATION COMMISSION'S REPORT).

Mr. McKie: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he can make any statement as to when the policy relative to the report of the Re-organisation Committee on milk will be announced?

Mr. Wedderburn: I am not in a position to say when it will be possible to make a statement on the subject.

Mr. McKie: May I take it that we have the assurance of the Department that the policy will be announced without any avoidable delay?

Mr. Wedderburn: All relevant considerations will be borne in mind.

PUBLIC ASSISTANCE (DUNBARTONSHIRE).

Mr. Cassells: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many persons, including dependants, in Dunbartonshire were, on the latest date for which figures are available, in receipt of public assistance; and what is the total weekly payment involved?

Mr. Wedderburn: As the reply consists of a table of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT:

Following is the reply:

CLYDESDALE BANK MURDER.

Mr. Cassells: asked the Lord Advocate whether the police and Crown Office investigations into the murder of a bank clerk in the employment of the Clydesdale Bank, Clydebank, are finally concluded, in so far as tracing the alleged murderer is concerned?

The Lord Advocate (Mr. T. M. Cooper): I have nothing to add to the answer which I gave the hon. Member on this subject on Thursday last.

Mr. Cassells: That is the answer I expected. Is the Lord Advocate aware that statements have appeared in the public Press to the effect that information has been furnished by the Crown Office Department naming a particular person, now dead, in connection with this crime, and that this particular person never had the opportunity of defending himself; and does not the Lord Advocate, in these special circumstances, consider it reasonable and proper that he should make a statement to the public?

The Lord Advocate: I have seen the Press report to which the hon. Member refers. The information did not emanate from the Crown Office, and I have no responsibility for it.

Mr. Cassells: May I have an assurance from the Lord Advocate that there is no justification for the statement whatever?

NEWSPRINT INDUSTRY.

Lieut.-Colonel Heneage: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether lie is satisfied that, with the 40 per cent. increase in the price of Scandinavian and Baltic pulp produce, it is in the interests of British newsprint production that foreign newsprint should still be on the free import list?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Dr. Burgin): As my hon. and gallant Friend is aware, the trade agreements with certain Scandinavian and Baltic countries include provisions for the entry free of duty into the United Kingdom of newsprint produced or manufactured in those countries. The position of the United Kingdom newsprint industry will be kept in mind in any negotiations for the revision of those agreements.

Mr. H. G. Williams: Can the Parliamentary Secretary say when notice of denunciation of these trade agreements will be given, so that we can free ourselves from their shackles?

Dr. Burgin: That is another question altogether, but I do not assent to the last part of it.

PROPERTY INVESTMENT SOCIETIES.

Sir John Mellor: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is satisfied that the provisions of the Industrial and Provident Societies Acts afford sufficient protection to investors in property investment societies registered under those Acts; and whether the Government are prepared to take steps to apply to such societies provisions similar to those contained in the Companies Acts for the protection of the investing public?

Dr. Burgin: I would refer my hon. Friend to the statement made in this House by my right hon. Friend on 17th November, 1936. He then stated that legislation would be introduced as soon as practicable to give effect to the recommendations of the Departmental Committee on Fixed Trusts, including their recommendations on the subject of certain companies registered under the Industrial and Provident Societies Acts.

Sir J. Mellor: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the fact that the Departmental Committee reported as long ago as July of last year, and will he endeavour to expedite the matter?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. Attlee: May I ask the Prime Minister what Orders the Government propose to take to-day in the event of the Motion on the Paper being carried; and will he also be good enough to say what will be the business for next week?

The Prime Minister: We are moving to suspend the Eleven o'Clock Rule in order to get the Committee and remaining stages of the Regency Bill, the Second Reading of the British Shipping (Continuance of Subsidy) Bill, and the Committee stage of the Statutory Salaries Money Resolution. There are a number of Orders, Nos. 3 to 8, which we should


like to obtain, as well as the Committee stage of the Diseases of Fish Money Resolution; but I do not propose to ask the House to sit late; we shall go as far as we can.
The business for next week will be as follows:
Monday: Consideration of Supplementary Estimates in Committee, beginning with Board of Education, Public Education (Scotland) and Special Areas Reconstruction Association. The Supplementary Estimates will be available in the Vote Office this evening.
Tuesday: Second Reading of the Reserve Forces Bill—copies of the Bill will be available in the Vote Office early this evening, and will be circulated to-morrow morning in the usual way; further consideration of Supplementary Estimates.
Wednesday: Private Members' Motions. This will be the last Private Member's Motion day.
Thursday: Factories Bill, Second Reading. We propose to allot two days to that discussion. The second day will probably be, though I do not commit myself to it, the Monday of the week following.
Friday: Private Members' Bills.
During the week, as opportunity offers, other Orders will be taken.

Mr. Attlee: With regard to the Supplementary Estimates, I understand that the Estimate for the Board of Education will deal with expenditure with reference to the Government's plans for physical training. In view of the fact that the Bill has not yet been presented, no discussion can take place on it, and I should like to ask whether there will be a White Paper to give us an opportunity of discussing that policy?

The Prime Minister: I understand that there will be a White Paper with the Votes. With regard to the point mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman, of course it must be for the Chair to say how wide the discussion may be, but I appreciate the point, and I note it. Supposing that it should not be possible under the Rules to allow as wide a Debate as the House would like, I will consider what opportunities may exist for a full discussion on the subject.

Mr. Attlee: The right hon. Gentleman will realise that, without the full policy, it will be practically impossible to discuss this particular Supplementary Estimate. May I further ask him, with regard to the Supplementary Estimate for the Special Areas Reconstruction Association, whether a White Paper can be issued? We have no information as to the activities of the association.

The Prime Minister: I am afraid I am not familiar with that matter, but will look into it. I cannot say more, because it is a new point.

Mr. Maxton: Can the Prime Minister give us any idea of the scope of the Reserve Forces Bill? This is the first time I have heard its name, and it seems to me to be rather rushing things to intimate that the Second Reading will be taken on Tuesday.

The Prime Minister: It is a single-Clause Bill, and it will be available this evening.

Mr. Attlee: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise the inconvenience to the House of having these matters put before it at short notice, without opportunity for consideration? Further, may I ask when we are to get the text of the proposals of the Government with regard to the major Measures outlined in the King's Speech—the Special Areas Bill, the Mining Royalties Bill and the Coal Mines Reconstruction Bill?

The Prime Minister: I am sorry I cannot give definite dates to-day, but I am just as anxious to introduce these Bills as the right hon. Gentleman is to welcome them. It will be at an early date, but I do not want to commit myself.

Mr. R. C. Morrison: In view of the fact that next Wednesday is the last private Members' day, would the right hon. Gentleman consider the suggestion that he should announce the business for the following week on Wednesday instead of Thursday?

The Prime Minister: Thursday is by common custom the day on which it is done, and I am sure if it were changed to Wednesday a number of Members would suggest Tuesday.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting.


from the provisions of the Standing Order(Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 226; Noes, 118.

Division No. 69.]
AYES.
[3.50 p.m.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.


Albery, Sir Irving
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd)
Entwistle, Sir C. F.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G. A.


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Errington, E.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)
Patrick, C. M.


Apsley, Lord
Everard, W. L.
Peake, O.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Fildes, Sir H.
Peat, C. U.


Assheton, R.
Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Peters, Dr. S. J.


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Petherick, M.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Furness, S. N.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Ganzoni, Sir J.
Pilkington, R.


Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.
Gilmour, Lt.-Cal. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Porritt, R. W.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Gluckstein, L. H.
Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.
Procter, Major H. A.


Beit, Sir A. L.
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Radford, E. A.


Bennett, Capt. Sir E. N.
Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.
Ramsbotham, H.


Blair, Sir R.
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Blindell, Sir J.
Grimston, R. V.
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Boulton, W. W.
Guy, J. C. M.
Rayner, Major R. H.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Hanbury, Sir C.
Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Bowyer, Capt. Sir G. E. W.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hepworth, J.
Rowlands, G.


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)


Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.
Salmon, Sir I.


Bull, B. B.
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Samuel, M. R. A. (Putney)


Bullook, Capt. M.
Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.
Sandeman, Sir N. S.


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


Burton, Col. H. W.
Hudson, R. S. (Southport)
Sandys, E. D.


Butler, R. A.
Hulbert, N. J.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Hunter, T.
Savery, Sir Servington


Gary, R. A.
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.
Scott, Lord William


Cayzer, Sir H. R. (Portsmouth, S.)
Keeling, E. H.
Selley, H. R.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.
Simmonds, O. E.


Channon, H.
Kimball, L.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.


Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)
Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Clarke, F. E.
Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak)
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Clarke, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)
Smithers, Sir W.


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Leckie, J. A.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Lees-Jones, J.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Leigh, Sir J.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff (W'st'r S.G'gs)
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Storey, S.


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Levy, T.
Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Liddall, W. S.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Courthope, Col. Sir G. L.
Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Cranborne, Viscount
Lloyd, G. W.
Sutcliffe, H.


Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Crooke, J. S.
Lumley, Capt. L. R.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Train, Sir J.


Cross, R. H.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Crowder, J. F. E.
M'Connell, Sir J.
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
McCorquodale, M. S.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Davison, Sir W. H.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Scot. U.)
Turton, R. H.


De Chair, S. S.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


De la Bère, R.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
McKie, J. H.
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F
Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J.
Wells, S. R.


Doland, G. F.
Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Donner, P. W.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.
Markham, S. F.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Duckworth, G. A. V. (Salop)
Maxwell, Hon. S. A.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Dugdale, Major T. L.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Duggan, H. J.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Duncan, J. A. L.
Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)
Wright, Squadron-Leader J. A. C.


Dunglass, Lord
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Dunne, P. R. R.
Morgan, R. H.



Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Sir George Penny and Lieut-


Ellis, Sir G.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Colonel Sir A. Lambert-Ward.


Elmley, Viscount
Munro, P.





NOES.


Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Riley, B.


Adams, D. M, (Poplar, S.)
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Ritson, J.


Adamson, W. M,
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.)


Ammon, C. G.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Harris, Sir P. A.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Rowson, G.


Barnes, A. J.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Salter, Dr. A.


Barr, J.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Sanders, W. S.


Batey, J.
Hicks, E. G.
Seely, Sir H. M.


Bellenger, F. J.
Hopkin, D.
Sexton, T. M.


Benson, G.
Jagger, J.
Shinwell, E.


Brooke, W.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Short, A.


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
John, W.
Silverman, S. S.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Simpson, F. B.


Cape, T.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)


Cassells, T.
Kelly, W. T.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Charleton, H. C.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Cluse, W. S.
Lathan, G.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees (K'ly)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Lawson, J. J.
Sorensen, R. W.


Cocks, F. S.
Lee, F.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Dalton, H.
Leonard, W.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Logan, D. G.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Day, H.
Lunn, W.
Thorne, W.


Dobbie, W.
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Thurtle, E.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
McEntee, V. La T.
Tinker, J. J.


Ede, J. C.
McGhee, H. G.
Viant, S. P.


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
Maclean, N.
Walkden, A. G.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Mander, G. le M.
Walker, J.


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Mathers, G.
Watkins, F. C.


Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)
Maxton, J.
Watson, W. McL.


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Messer, F.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Gallacher, W.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Welsh, J. C.


Gardner, B. W.
Muff, G.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Naylor, T. E.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Gibbins, J.
Parkinson, J. A.
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Potts, J.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Pritt, D. N.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Grenfell, D. R.
Quibell, D. J. K.



Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Richards, R. (Wrexham)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Whlteley and Mr. Groves.


Bill read the Third time, and passed.

BILL PRESENTED.

RESERVE FORCES BILL,

"to amend Section one of the Reserve Forces and Militia Act, 1898, by extending the period of liability to be called out on permanent service thereunder," presented by Mr. Duff Cooper; supported by Sir Victor Warrender; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 75.]

PATENT MEDICINES.

Ordered, That the Report of the Select Committee on Patent Medicines in Session 1914 be referred to the Select Committee on Medicine Stamp Duties.—[Sir John Ganzoni.]

STANDING ORDERS.

Resolution reported from the Select Committee;

"That, in the case of the Richmond (Surrey) Corporation, Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill."

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE B.

Colonel Gretton reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee B: Mr. Smedley Crooke, Major Dorman-Smith, Mr. Nicolson, Mr. R. J. Russell, and Sir Ernest Shepperson; and had appointed in substitution: Colonel Baldwin-Webb, Sir Reginald Blaker, Mr. Allan Reid, Mr. Salt, and Squadron-Leader Wright.

Colonel Gretton further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Twenty Members to Standing Committee B (in respect of the Merchant Shipping Bill): Lieut.-Commander Agnew, Colonel Sandeman Allen, The Attorney-General, Sir Charles Barrie, Dr. Burgin, Sir Herbert Cayzer, Mr. Duncan, Captain Arthur Evans, Mr. Garro Jones, Mr. Gibbins, Mr. Law, Mr. Logan, Mr. Maclay, Mr. Muff, Major Neven-Spence, Colonel Ropner, Mr. Runciman, Sir Hugh Seely, Mr. Benjamin Smith, and Mr. Henry Strauss.

Colonel Gretton further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Ten Members to Standing Committee B (in respect of the Geneva Convention Bill [Lords]): The Attorney-General, Dr. Burgin, Mr. Burke, Mr. Duncan, Sir Geoffrey Ellis, Mr. Emrys-Evans, Mr. Grenfell, Mr. Gritten, Mr. McEntee and Mr. Henry Strauss.

SCOTTISH STANDING COMMITTEE.

Colonel Gretton further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Ten Members to the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills (in respect of the Harbours, Piers and Ferries (Scotland) Bill): Lord Balniel, Mr. Leckie, Dr. Leech, Commander Locker-Lampson, Mr. Mabane, Mr. Ross Taylor, Sir Nairne Stewart Sandeman, Sir Servington Savery, Colonel Sir John Shute and Lord Colum Crichton-Stuart.

Reports to lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — REGENCY BILL.

Considered in Committee.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Regency while the Sovereign is under eighteen.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

4.1 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I notice that this Clause retains what I know is the historic practice, that the Sovereign attains his majority at the age of 18. It seems to me that this exceptional provision for one particular person in the State requires some justification in these days. The ordinary minor with an estate cannot attain his majority until he is 21 years of age. The ordinary citizen is not allowed to exercise the franchise until he or she is 21 years of age. A Peer of the Realm is not entitled, I understand, to take his seat in the other House until he attains the age of 21. Yet we propose that the first person in the realm shall be able to exercise all the functions of his office, and to act without restraint in so far as he is allowed to exercise a personal volition in the exercise of his office, at as early an age as 18.
Whatever may have been the justification for it in older days—when, as in the case of Richard II, there may have been great fears that the council who were managing the affairs of the nation were really depriving the Monarch of his rights, because I believe Richard II did not really function as an independent Monarch until well over 21 years of age—there can be no ground for suggesting at the present time that there is any great necessity for reposing the very delicate and important functions that remain to the Sovereign in so young a person as one 18 years of age. I would like to hear from the Home Secretary or some other Minister of the Crown whether this point has in fact been considered, and what were the reasons for suggesting that the Sovereign should be regarded as capable of acting as an adult at 18 years of age, whereas the ordinary citizen is not supposed to be capable of so acting until 21 years of age.

4.4 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir John Simon): The hon. Gentleman raises quite an interesting question, which is redolent of history. I can assure him that in inserting the age of 18 years those responsible for the Bill have not failed to consider both precedents and the merits of the Clause so framed. I think I am right in saying that this has always been the age mentioned in a Regency Bill. As I said on the Second Reading, Queen Victoria had just reached that age when she ascended the Throne, and we all know that she exercised her duties from the beginning of her Reign. I do not think there would be any justification for departing from this traditional figure. The work which the modern Sovereign does, laborious as it is, is almost entirely work that is done on the advice of Ministers. Assuming that the Sovereign is of good physical and mental condition, which we all hope a Sovereign will continue to be henceforth, there is really nothing in the choice of the age of 18 which is unusual. I hope therefore, that the hon. Gentleman, having raised the point, will reflect that as we get older we tend to regard those younger than ourselves as too young.

4.6 p.m.

Mr. Maxton: I am in opposition to the whole principle of this Bill, as the right hon. Gentleman knows. My opposition on the Second Reading of the Bill does not justify me in conducting a fight against the Bill on the Committee stage; but here again we are faced with the dilemma that always arises when this question of the Monarchy is discussed. If the duties to be performed are responsible duties, then, as the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) has just said, the appropriate age is the age that is recognised in all other walks of life as the age of full manhood or womanhood-21 years. An hon. Friend behind me reminds me that that is the age that one must attain before being permitted to sit in this House. If on the other hand the duties are, as has been pointed out by the Home Secretary, merely of an automatic nature, not requiring any maturity of judgment at all and only ability to write one's name in a fairly legible hand, I should imagine that even the young Heir to the Throne just now, if she had


attained ordinary educational advancement, would be capable of the particular aptitude of signing her name.
I do not believe in Monarchy at all. I have said that before once or twice. I do not believe that any other institution would be run in this way. I do not believe that the captain of the Royal and Ancient Golf Club would be appointed in that way, and his duties are not so responsible. I am sorry I have not the right hon. Gentleman's attention to that point. If it is the view of the House that the institution of Monarchy is worth maintaining, if the duties are of a highly responsible nature calling for measured judgment on important occasions—it was the view expressed on Tuesday by a majority of 300 and more to one—then be serious about it, and do not tell us that the job can be held by some immature child. The institution in these recent times has had big knocks and severe dents. If it is the desire of the House of Commons further to discredit the institution the House will say that this position, which is said to be the highest in the land, can be held by a juvenile; but if the House wants really to maintain among the population the belief that this is a serious appointment, with serious duties, then the House will see that it is occupied by a person who has reached adult years.

CLAUSE 2.—(Regency during total incapacity of the Sovereign.)

4.11 p.m.

Sir J. Simon: I beg to move, in page 2, line 19, to leave out "three" and insert "four".
When the Bill was before the House on Second Reading I pointed out that there was a theoretical possibility that, if you speak of three people out of six exercising the powers mentioned, an equal division might occur, with results that no one would intend. The best course, we think, would be to substitute "four" for "three" and by that slight change any theoretical difficulty of that sort would be dealt with.

4.12 p.m.

Mr. Lees-Smith: Of course, we support this Amendment, but the Home Secretary has not given an explanation why the

Clause was drafted in its present form. I remember that on one occasion Mr. Gladstone made a mistake in a Bill on a question of figures, and a high Treasury official was taken to account. That mistake might have led to a very great predicament. I think the Home Secretary should in some way or other have apologised to the House for the error which he now asks us to put right.

4.13 p.m.

Mr. Mander: I ask the Home Secretary to be good enough to consider whether this Amendment is really the best way of dealing with the difficult situation which has arisen. If he will look at the matter I think he will see that a more effective alteration could be made by omitting from the list of six persons mentioned one of those persons, that is the person next in succession to the Throne. I cannot help feeling that you place the next in succession in a very invidious position, in having to be one of those who decide whether the Sovereign is sane or not. There might be a good deal of feeling about it in the country. It might be a border-line case, and if the person who is to come to the Throne as a result of the decision is obliged himself to take part in such a decision, there is placed on him a most unfair burden. I am sure that these six persons would exercise the best of their judgment in honesty, but that might not be the opinion of large sections of population of the country. Whoever occupies the Throne in this country is really occupying a sort of semi-Civil Service position, the highest point in the Service. By the admirable British system of compromise he is a sort of hereditary president of this realm, and it is desirable to keep such a person high above all controversy, but certain circumstances might arise under this Clause to bring him into public controversy. I ask the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary to address his mind to that point.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Gallacher: The hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) has drawn attention to the invidious position of the successor to the Throne in being one of those who might have to decide whether the occupant of the Throne is sane or not. I am of the opinion that the wife of the occupant of the Throne would be in a more invidious position, because the wife would not like to have to give


judgment on her husband. The point I want to take up is one that I wanted to raise when we were discussing the Second Reading of the Bill. The Home Secretary, with his very ingenious and skilled mind, gets into a difficulty in one part, and out of it in another part. As a matter of fact, this is a Bill directed at the present Monarch. That is clear from the whole character of the Bill. Before the Coronation takes place, we are already discussing how we can substitute him. You are to have the wife or husband of the Sovereign, the successor, and then these four distinguished gentlemen, making six persons. The Home Secretary says that if we took six persons, we might have three saying that the King is sane and the other three saying that he is not sane, and that would be a very undesirable situation. He said, "We will make it four." If this is a permanent Bill, and the Princess at 18 years of age occupies the Throne unmarried, you will have five persons—the successor and the four distinguished gentlemen. The Home Secretary says that there must be four to decide whether the occupant of the Throne is insane. I suggest to the Home Secretary that if this is to be a permanent Bill, he must find some other number than four.

4.17 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give some attention to the arguments adduced by the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander). The appropriate thing to do is, not to have any member of the Royal family associated with this matter at all. It is only just over 100 years ago since George IV was on the Throne, and does anyone imagine that there would have been any difficulty in getting, during the first year of his reign, his wife to sign any certificate upon the flimsiest pretext at all that would have deprived him of the Throne, which he had declined to allow her to share. It is notorious that when one of his courtiers went to him and said, in announcing the death of Napoleon, in the year 1821, "Sir, Your chief enemy is dead," he replied, "By God, is she?" In these matters one must not allow the more happy circumstances of the present time 10 delude him into thinking that we are dealing with other than very human people who are subject to all the temptations and difficulties which surround other

people in similar circumstances. I should have thought that in a high office of this sort, it was very undesirable that persons in close family relationship with the person who is the subject of the medical inquiry should be associated with the action that may have to be taken as the result of the physician's certificate: I hope, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman will not try to solve this problem in the way suggested in the Amendment, but will adopt the course of leaving out the two persons associated with the Royal family mentioned in the Clause.

4.22 p.m.

Sir J. Simon: Perhaps I may be allowed to reply to the point which has been made, and I can assure hon. Gentlemen who have taken part in the discussion that I will consider very carefully, without any sort of bias, the criticism which they have suggested. I should think that we are agreed that, if the Clause stands in other respects as it is now printed, it is right not to have the possible equal division, and to that extent the alteration from "three" to "four" would appear to be necessary and justified. But it has been possible within the limits of Order to discuss—and I intend to say a few words about it—whether or not one of the persons upon whom the responsibility of certification rests is to be the person who is next in the line of succession to the Throne, and it is true to say that in one event that would be the person who would become Regent.
I can see the reason why the Clause is drawn in this form. It appeared desirable that among those who would consider what was the proper conclusion to reach in declaring on the question of incapacity should be some persons whose knowledge of the matter was derived from intimate association. This, I imagine, would be the main factor. It is a matter of public importance, but it is also, of course, in a certain sense a matter which is specially within the competence of those who are near and dear to the person concerned. I imagine that the reason it was thought right to put it in this form was that, while, on the one hand, you have very distinguished officers of State in positions which we all recognise to be quite aloof as well as impartial, it is desirable to have among those men one, or may be


two, who will have the closest association of a different sort. That was the intention.
I will very gladly consider afresh the points that have been made. I am not prepared to agree to alter the scheme of the Clause at present, but I will consider the matter most carefully. I agree that it is a perfectly appropriate point to raise. I think that the explanation which I have given is probably the right one, and I ask hon. Gentlemen who spoke to be good enough to await its consideration, because I think these points have a good deal of weight in deciding what is the best way to make out this list of persons who have to serve. The right hon. Gentleman opposite very graciously demanded from me an apology, and inasmuch as it is the privilege of a Minister of the Crown to take on his shoulders everybody else's faults, I most readily apologise but I cannot disclose the hand which first wrote down this provision.

4.26 p.m.

Mr. Lees-Smith: I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's spirit, but I think that the Debate has raised quite a substantial point, far more substantial than appeared to be the case when it was first mentioned. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will look into the matter. We are discussing things which seem so contingent that they are almost academic, but this is a permanent Bill. I do not remember a great deal about the history of this country, but I believe it is almost a tradition that the Heir Apparent has frequently, historically, not been on very happy terms with the Sovereign. For that reason, the proposal which has been made is an unwise one for the Government to adopt. We shall revert to it on the Report stage, and no doubt the right hon. Gentleman will give it consideration meanwhile.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

4.29 p.m.

Mr. Logan: I want to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary to line 27, in page 2, where, I suggest, an alteration should be made between now and the Third Reading. It may be that I am not able to understand what is really meant by the words

On the evidence of physicians or otherwise.
I lay stress on the word "otherwise." In determining the mentality of the Monarch, I take it that the duty would rest upon the evidence of physicians. The words "or otherwise" appear to have no meaning, unless someone is intended apart from the physicians. What is the meaning of those words? They appear to be redundant, and to allow a latitude which is not intended in the Bill. I should like to hear an explanation, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he can delete the words "or otherwise" between now and the Third Reading of the Bill.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Gallacher: In opposing this Clause, I want to draw attention to the fact that it is not the case that this is a permanent Bill. It is not meant as a permanent Bill. It is meant specifically in connection with this Reign, and the fact that the Home Secretary could so lightly skate over this Amendment that he has put forward is an indication of that fact. If you are going to have four out of five as a majority to decide this question, that is an indication of the fact; if it is meant to be four out of six, it only applies in connection with this Reign. This Bill could not possibly be accepted by any properly independent Member of this House as a permanent Measure with this particular Clause in it, amended as it now is. I make my protest against the attempt that is being made to deceive this House and the country into the belief that this is a permanent Bill, because this Clause, as it has been amended, has made it perfectly clear that it is a Bill directed towards the occupant of the Throne at the present time. It is the present occupant of the Throne who is suspect and for whom all this preparation has got to be made, and it is not in any way intended to apply to any future Reign.

4.32 p.m.

Earl Winterton: I do not think even an hon. Member who represents so small an amount of opinion in the country as does the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) should be permitted to get away with the monstrous assertion which he has just made. In the name of the whole country, except the Communist party, I say that his statement is without the slightest vestige of foundation, and could


only have come from someone who approaches the subject with a distorted brain.

Mr. Maxton: Will the Noble Earl take the Committee into his confidence and tell it what his justifications are for contradicting the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher)?

Earl Winterton: I was referring to the hon. Member's assertion that this is a temporary Bill, or Clause, brought in only to deal with the position of the present King. I say that that statement is without any foundation.

Mr. Maxton: Why?

Earl Winterton: I will say why. The hon. Member went on to insinuate that there was something in the personal position of the present King which made it necessary to bring in this Bill. That is a monstrous statement, and quite untrue.

4.34 p.m.

Mr. Maxton: I do not see that there is anything wrong in that. The Noble Earl is a master of vituperation. He singles out the hon. Member for West Fife because he is a single man in the House, and he seems to think that therefore he is entitled, presumably, to be heavily attacked.

Mr. Gallacher: I—

Mr. Maxton: Wait a minute.

The Chairman: If hon. Members wish to say anything, they must wait their turn.

Mr. Maxton: I am quite willing to give way to the hon. Member for West Fife if necessary. I merely rose to make this point: The Noble Earl is one of the senior Members of this House and a very skilled Parliamentarian. He has probably a greater knowledge of House of Commons procedure than have most people in the House, and I suggest to him that either the hon. Member for West Fife or myself is quite entitled to come forward here, and, having regard to the fact that it has never been thought necessary to introduce a Measure of this description before, and having regard to the fact that the provisions in the Bill are inserted on the assumption of the continuation of the existing conditions, we are quite entitled to draw the conclusion that the

Bill is produced because of the circumstances of this particular Reign and this particular Monarch. If a strong case can be made out to prove the contrary, then we shall be very glad to hear it, but I do not think it is sufficient to answer the argument of the hon. Member for West Fife merely by vituperation.

4.36 p.m.

Mr. Gallacher: May I say a word or two with regard to presumption of the noble Lord? I do not know whether it is in order, but if it is, I would like to describe it as ignorant presumption, because the noble Lord was not in the Committee while the discussion on this Clause was taking place. He comes in and presumably allots to himself some special role in this matter. He is continually serving out bouquets or insults to this one or that one, just as it pleases his high majesty. The only necessity for a Regency Bill is for a Regency Bill directed towards the Heir Apparent, if he is a minor, and there never has been in the history of this country a Regency Bill which has not been related to the Heir Apparent. But here on this occasion we get a Bill such as was never known before, a Regency Bill related, not to the Heir Apparent, but to the reigning Monarch. Is that true or is it not true? Let the Home Secretary answer, because I am certain that the noble Lord has not got the intelligence to answer.
Any Regency Bill hitherto introduced has been directed towards the Heir Apparent, but this Bill is specifically directed towards the Monarch. In this Clause which we are discussing there are six persons mentioned, and the Clause, as printed, states that three of them can decide a particular question. The Home Secretary then tells us that there might be three who would decide that the Monarch was insane and three that he was not insane, and so we should be in a bad position. In order to overcome that difficulty, he says, "We will make it four as against two." I drew attention to the fact that it is not a permanent Bill. If it is not a Bill merely affecting this Reign, then in the next Reign we may get a Queen who is unmarried, and so there will be no husband coming into the group, and you will only have the successor, the likely Regent, and four other persons, so that it becomes four out of five, instead of a majority of three


as against two being effective. If there are three who decide on the evidence that the King or Queen is unqualified to carry on, then two can hold up the thing. Never in any circumstances would this House agree to such a proposition. In view of the fact that nobody has taken any exception to this absurd and foolish Amendment, I am entitled, and the country is entitled, to accept the only conclusion that can be drawn from it, and that is that this Bill has been framed specifically for the purpose of this Reign, and that it does not concern the future or future eventualities at all.

4.38 p.m.

Mr. Tinker: May we have an explanation? There is something in what the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) has said. You are making a change in the present position, and there muust be some cause for that, either in the last Reign or looking ahead to a future Reign. I think that while a change is being made, we are entitled to have some information from the right hon. Gentleman who is responsible for the Bill as to why the change is being brought about. I am not putting any implication on what has happened.

Sir J. Simon: To what change is the hon. Member referring?

Mr. Tinker: For what is Clause 2 being brought forward? It is certainly a change in the present position in regard to the Monarchy, and there must be some cause for it, something behind it. I would like the right hon. Gentleman to take the Committee into his confidence in this matter, because we are trying to put the thing straight, and it is not that there is any question in my mind against the Monarchy, but only that I want to know why this is being done. I do not like anything going abroad to the effect that we are trying to hide anything here, because that would be wrong and because the public want the right hon. Gentleman to take them into his confidence and to tell them what is happening.

4.40 p.m.

Mr. Short: I do not propose to follow the hon. Members in the dispute that has taken place between them, though having regard to the phraseology of the Bill, I think there is room for a legitimate difference of opinion, and we are entitled to

ask for some explanation from the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill. Up to now we have had every courtesy from him, and I have no doubt that he will not depart from that attitude. I think the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for the Scotland Division (Mr. Logan) is not only interesting but important, because the words "or otherwise" have raised a question in my own mind, and I think the Committee is entitled to some information as to what they mean. Upon whose opinion or authority, if a physician is absent, will the appropriate persons act in this case? That seems to me to be a reasonable request, and I have no doubt that it will be properly dealt with by the right hon. Gentleman.
There is another matter to which I would like to refer, and it is in connection with Sub-section (2). I am very anxious that Parliament should have the last word in matters of this character, and I am not quite certain, from the reading of Subsection (2), that Parliament will have any authority in connection with this matter. Sub-section (2) states:
A declaration under this section shall be made to the Privy Council and communicated to the Governments of His Majesty's Dominions and to the Government of India.
I am not certain what is the relation of the Privy Council to this House, but while the Governments of the Dominions and of India are properly mentioned, there seems to be no statement that such declaration will be made to this House. In Clause 5 reference is made to this House, because it states there, "unless Parliament otherwise determines." That, of course, deals with another matter, but upon this vital issue of whether a decision that the reigning Monarch is incapable of carrying on, I think that should be reported to the House and that the House should have an opportunity of discussing it.

4.43 p.m.

Mr. Mander: There is quite a different point which I wish to bring to the attention of the Home Secretary, if this is the appropriate place to do so. I refer to the situation of the Dominions in regard to this Bill, and I think it is in order, because it comes under Sub-section (2) of this Clause. The Home Secretary, when introducing the Bill, said that when it became an Act it would take effect in the United Kingdom and Colonies, and presumably therefore not in the


Dominions. There are very distinguished constitutionalists and lawyers in this country who have expressed a different view, and I think that their views deserve consideration, in view of the wide interests involved.

The Chairman: I think the hon. Member is getting beyond this Clause now. The only way in which the Dominions come in under this Clause is in regard to the question of communication.

4.44 p.m.

Earl Winterton: There is a question that I would like to ask on a purely drafting point. I thought it was usual in official documents to refer to "His Majesty's Governments in the Dominions," and I understood that those Governments—I may be wrong—preferred themselves to be so described. It is purely a matter of nomenclature, but here they are described as "the Governments of His Majesty's Dominions," and I thought the phrase "His Majesty's Governments in the Dominions" had been agreed upon at the Imperial Conference.

4.45 p.m.

Sir J. Simon: To deal first with the matter just mentioned by my Noble Friend the right hon. Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton), the Bill has been submitted to the Dominions, and I do not think there is any point there. Of course, if there is, it is, as he said, a mere matter of phraseology. I will check it, but I think it is all right. Those who heard what I said on the Second Reading will realise that I explained the purpose of Clause 2 pretty well, but there is no reason why it should not be stated again, when we are considering the question, "That the Clause stand part." I will, therefore, state the position as briefly and as simply as I can. It will be within the recollection of hon. Members that during the reign of King George V His Majesty fell exceedingly ill on one occasion, but he happily recovered, and on another occasion he had an illness which led to his death. It was possible in those circumstances for him to take the necessary action to secure the administration of the Royal functions. He was well enough to authorise that to be done. Let us suppose that we had a case—there have been cases in the past—in which the Monarch was suddenly and completely rendered incapable, either through physical disability

or mental disease, there is nothing in the existing Constitutional position which gives us the means of securing that a Regent shall be appointed. That is why Clause 2 deals with the question of incapacity. If hon. Members will turn to Clause 6 they will see that it deals with the event of an illness not amounting to total incapacity; but if the occupant of the Throne becomes totally incapable, then it is necessary to have some machinery that will determine that fact so that provision for a Regent may come into operation.
As regards what was said by the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher), I can dispose in a sentence of what he stated by declaring that there is no truth whatever in his suspicion, no doubt sincerely entertained. There is no ground for his suggestion that there is something highly suspicious about this Bill, and that it is not what it pretends to be. It appeared to the Government, and it appeared to the House two days ago, that it is desirable to make permanent provision for emergency, and that is what we are doing. It is the height of absurdity for anybody, however suspiciously-minded they may be, to think that Clause 2 is directed to the case which is perhaps immediately in our minds, for the simple reason that the case which is in our minds is the possibility of a child succeeding to the Throne before reaching a certain age. That has nothing whatever to do with Clause 2, because that Clause deals with the incapacity of the Sovereign.
The hon. Member for the Scotland division of Liverpool (Mr. Logan) called attention to the words "the evidence of physicians or otherwise." The reason for using that phrase is this that, while I suppose the main evidence in any such case would be that of skilled professional medical men who had been attending the case, it is true, and it would be true in any tribunal that wanted to gather information, that the information would not necessarily be confined to physicians. It might be nurses or other persons who had something in the way of information to contribute to the evidence to be considered.

Mr. Logan: I hardly think so. I submit that the words "or otherwise" are redundant. It is the condition of the Monarch that has to be considered. Surely, in the case of the Monarch, the


evidence of nurses, if they are to be included within the definition, "or otherwise," would not be enough. Surely, there are sufficient alienists or specialists in medicine who would be able to determine what was the matter. It is not a case away in some remote area, away from civilisation where you are dealing with some savage chief, and that, therefore, you want to bring in the term "or otherwise." What is the real definition of "or otherwise"? I take it that the evidence of the physicians would be the determining factor, and not the evidence obtained from" or otherwise." If the alternative is to be those included in the term "or otherwise," who are the persons concerned? Surely it must relate to persons. Is it to be tittle-tattle or practical evidence by accredited responsible persons on the question of mentality? "Or otherwise" is a redundant phrase, and particularly when the question to be determined affects the sanity of the Monarch we ought not to rely upon such a phrase. I know that there may be subtlety of language in the law, but the first essential in the English language is to be true in definition. I am at a loss to understand the meaning of the words "or otherwise" in regard to the Monarch.

Sir J. Simon: My hon. Friend has not convinced me that there is any difficulty at all.

Mr. Logan: I am glad the right hon. Gentleman understands it. I do not understand it.

Sir J. Simon: Perhaps other hon. Members may be more fortunate than the hon. Member.

Mr. Logan: I may be one of the "or otherwise."

Sir J. Simon: It will be some comfort to the hon. Member to know that the Speaker of the House of Commons, the Lord Chief Justice of England, the Lord Chancellor and the Master of the Rolls will be among those who will have to form this conclusion.

Mr. Loģan: Yes, but—

Sir J. Simon: I listened with patience to the hon. Member and I hope that he will listen to me. I think that the hon. Member on reflection will appreciate that

there is a good deal of security in the names I have just given to the House.
There is a further point with regard to the Amendment which I proposed to the first line of this Clause, and it is only right that I should tell the Committee the conclusion at which I am disposed to arrive in the light of what has been said. I shall be prepared, if it is the wish of the Committee, to exclude from the list of persons who have to make the declaration that the Sovereign is totally incapable the person who would become Regent and for the time being act in his place. I gather that that is the wish of the Committee, and I am prepared to see that that is done. One can conceive that a slightly invidious situation might arise otherwise. None of us would suggest that such a person, whoever he might be, would not act to the best of his conscience and ability in arriving at a conclusion, but the situation would be invidious, and I am prepared to see that an Amendment is made on the lines suggested. That being so, on the Report stage I shall be prepared, instead of altering three to four, to restore the three and alter six to five. I think that we ought to keep in the wife or husband of the Sovereign, but to exclude the person who is next in line of succession. I do not complain of hon. Members raising these points and I will see that the necessary Amendment is made, in accordance with the wishes of the Committee.

4.56 p.m.

Mr. Loģan: With all due respect to the right hon. Gentleman, I would call his attention to the statement that I made in regard to the words, "or otherwise" It is not accurate to say that the Speaker is the determining factor. The Bill does not say so. What it says is that these persons shall declare in writing that they are satisfied "on the evidence." If they are to be satisfied on the evidence, what is the necessity of adding the words "or otherwise"? They have to be satisfied on the evidence of somebody, and the somebody in this case is the physician.

4.57 p.m.

Mr. Maxton: As the Home Secretary has met other criticisms so fully, is there any conceivable reason for keeping in the words "or otherwise"? I listened to his explanation, but surely in any other institution of life when a man's sanity was at issue evidence other than the


evidence of qualified medical men would not be regarded as worthy of consideration. The right hon. Gentleman has greater knowledge of the courts than I ever expect or desire to have, and I know that lawyers like to have phrases of that sort, in order to meet some contingency that may arise unexpectedly, but what we desire is that which would be accepted in the ordinary affairs of life. The ordinary employer demands a medical certificate, and in this matter, if it is of any importance that we should know about the health and sanity of the Monarch, surely it should be definitely laid down that the only kind of evidence that will be accepted will be competent medical evidence. Fancy Mr. Speaker being asked to consider whether the report of Nurse So-and-So on the state of the Monarch was a good report. Fancy summoning the Lord Chancellor, the Speaker, the Lord Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls to discuss whether the information sent by Nurse So-and-So—that was the Home Secretary's only defence of the phrase, "or otherwise"—was evidence that the Monarch was insane. It is childish. The Home Secretary, since he has agreed to make substantial alterations might cut out these two words. I do not suggest that he is responsible for them. The man who drafts this sort of thing has a kink in his mind and has to get off a phrase of this sort, but we want to have precise language.

4.59 p.m.

Sir William Davison: I hope the Home Secretary will keep the words as they appear in the Clause. No reason has been given for excluding them. The only objection to them from hon. Members opposite is that the Speaker, the Lord Chief Justice, the Lord Chancellor and the Master of the Rolls should only be allowed to take the evidence of physicians. Why should they be confined to physicians? Why not take the evidence of the Prime Minister, or the Home Secretary, or any other person in the habit of associating with the Monarch, as to his conduct in particular circumstances? There is no reason why we should confine these distinguished men to one particular class in the community. Why should they be prevented from asking the Prime Minister for his opinion as to whether the Monarch had done certain things on certain occasions? I can see no reason why only one section of the

community should be allowed to give evidence on this point and why these distinguished public gentlemen should not be entitled, if they so desire, to ask for evidence from any other persons.

Mr. Logan: It seems to me that no court would accept the evidence of some Prime Ministers in this House as to the mentality of the Monarch.

Sir W. Davison: It is for these gentlemen to take any evidence they require. If it was necessary to show that the Monarch was suffering in any particular way it might be that persons who were associating with the Monarch would be able to furnish the evidence which the physicians would desire.

5.2 p.m.

Mr. Ede: The question we are discussing is entirely a medical point. The distinguished people mentioned in the Clause have to be satisfied that the Sovereign is by reason of infirmity of mind or body wholly incapable of performing his functions. That, after all, is a decision on a medical point, and to my mind no one but medical people can properly express an opinion. Many hon. Members have been associated with great mental institutions and they know the great difficulty of a layman, no matter how distinguished, in dealing with mental cases. I remember going round a mental hospital with a doctor and asking a man the reason for his being there, He said; "Democracy."

Sir J. Simon: Were you asking the doctor?

Mr. Ede: I was asking the man.

Sir J. Simon: Ought you to have asked him that question?

Mr. Ede: I asked him the question on the suggestion of the doctor. I agree that such questions should not be asked. The reply I got was, "I thought the world was mad and the world thought that I was mad, and the world being in a majority put me in here." I say that it is quite wrong to suggest that any layman, no matter how distinguished, can say that mental incapacity is likely permanently to disable the person who is the subject of the investigation. I suggest that as the Clause is framed now there need be no evidence from a. physician at all. It is not the evidence


of physicians and other persons, it is the evidence of physicians "or otherwise." We are dealing with the future, with people whom we do not know, and there may be a case where people would be prepared to act without taking the evidence of physicians or would ignore the evidence submitted by physicians. In these circumstances I think there should be some provision in the Bill that physicians must at least give some evidence, that such evidence should be considered, and that it shall not he possible for the matter to be dealt with without bringing in physicians at all.

5.5 p.m.

Mr. Assheton: I only want to remind the Committee that the suspicions of the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) are based on entirely bad history. He told us that in no previous Regency Bill had there been a provision for a regency during the incapacity of the Sovereign and that it had referred only to the possibility of the heir being a minor. That, of course, is not the case. The Regency Bill in the reign of George III referred to the incapacity of the Sovereign, and if the hon. Member will direct his attention to Section 7 of the Lords Justices Act of 1837, which is repealed by this Bill, he will be reminded that on the occasion of Queen Victoria's accession to the Throne a similar Act was passed making provision in her case.

5.6 p.m.

Mr. Gallacher: If I am wrong in my presentation of the question the Home Secretary must take the responsibility, as he said this Bill followed the normal procedure of a Regency Bill relating to the Heir to the throne and that in the case referred to the Monarch was already incapacitated before the question of regency was taken up. But never before in the history of this country, before a coronation, has there been such a proposition as this. I want to get to the words "or otherwise." The hon. Member opposite has suggested that not only physicians but that the Prime Minister, as a result of his discussions with the Monarch, might suggest that the Monarch was mentally deficient or not what he should be, and that it would be considered. But what if the Monarch said that the Prime Minister was mentally deficient? Would that have

to be considered? What sort of argument is being put forward here? The Home Secretary may say that the Monarch is mentally deficient, but the Monarch might say that the Home Secretary was mentally deficient.
It is quite clear that in questions affecting the bodily and mental health of any human being, I do not care who it is, you might get physicians who would be seriously wrong and whose judgment might seriously endanger life. I have known people who have been persuaded by an examination that they had cancer suffering the most terrible agony and years of ill health. On questions affecting bodily and mental health there should be nothing loose. The greatestpossible care should be exercised to see that only the most specialised evidence shall be submitted or considered by any body of men. The distinguished men who are mentioned have got no special qualifications for deciding this particular question of bodily and mental capacity, and it would be entirely wrong to leave them in the position of being unable to receive evidence of the most careful and exact nature.
I support the protest against this part of the Clause. Like the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) I am not interested in Monarchs but in the masses of the people and I hope that no human being will be subject to the possibility of any decision being reached on his physical or mental condition which would leave any room for a mistake being made. Terrible things would result as a consequence of that.

5.10 p.m.

Sir Archibald Sinclair: I am inclined to the opinion that the world is mad. The speech of the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) gave me a cold chill down the back, because I suddenly realised that it was not inconceivable that the world might come to the conclusion that I was mad. If that did happen I should be sorry indeed to have my case judged solely on what the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) calls, "specialised evidence." I should much prefer to have it judged partly on the opinion of ordinary common-sense people who knew me well. I should like to think that if my case was being judged I should be able to call in evidence my friends, the people with whom I had been


doing business. I should like to be able to suggest that such and such a person's opinion should be obtained—

Sir J. Simon: And perhaps give evidence yourself.

Sir A. Sinclair: Yes. Although there may be occasions when the accused person should not give evidence I should like to have the power of giving evidence myself. Therefore, it seems to me that it would be a mistake to confine this evidence to specialised persons. But where are these persons going to get their evidence? A doctor by looking at a man cannot discover if he is insane. He has to get his evidence from someone, "or otherwise." I have seen many reports of criminal cases in which eminent men with great knowledge of mental diseases have gone into the witness-box and on their oath sworn diametrically opposite opinions. In these circumstances I hope we shall leave in the words "or otherwise," and give any individual who may be in the unfortunate position we are now contemplating the advantage of being able to bring as evidence in his support the opinion of ordinary men with whom he works and lives in daily contact.

Mr. Gallacher: The real point of this matter is being missed. Medical men will take evidence not only from the patient, but from the friends of the patient, and then submit their evidence. But you could get quite easily a case where a friend of the patient could forward certain manifestations as an indication of madness and the specialist saying that, taking all the circumstances into consideration, the patient was quite normal. The four distinguished men who are to consider the evidence are not in a position to weigh up accurately the evidence which may be given by friends, and might easily give too much weight on one side or the other. Medical men will take the evidence of their own examinations and of the friends of the patient, and submit to the four distinguished gentlemen who have to decide.

CLAUSE 3.—(The Regent.)

5.14 p.m.

Sir J. Simon: I beg to move, in page 3, line 3, to leave out "resident in," and to insert "domiciled in some part of."
It has been pointed out to me by an hon. Member that a case might arise in which the difference would be material. Suppose, for instance, that the next heir was acting as Governor-General in a Dominion and was therefore temporarily absent from the United Kingdom. He would not be resident in the United Kingdom but he would still be domiciled here, and it was never intended that he should be excluded in circumstances like that. The change is a very slight one—I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman who pointed it out—and I suggest that it cannot be a matter of controversy. I think this Amendment will appeal to all hon. Members.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Emmott: I should like to call attention to a point arising on this Clause which is of some interest, but which I am free to confess has been brought to my notice by a letter in the "Times" newspaper. The advantage of such a confession is that if the point be proved to be a false one, one can disclaim all responsibility for it. Clause 3, Sub-section (1), says that
the Regent shall be that person who, excluding any persons disqualified under this section, is next in the line of succession to the Crown.
Then Sub-section (2) describes the disqualifications, the first disqualification being:
If he is not a British subject of full age and domiciled in some part of the United Kingdom.
Now I am really seeking information, and it may not be uninteresting to observe that, if this point is sound, a person who is qualified to exercise the functions of Regency is of necessity a British subject. I believe that is the position which results from certain Statutes. Let me bring to the notice of the Committee the relevant parts of the Statutes, and in doing so I must ask leave to abbreviate the text of them, since they are rather long. In the Act of Settlement, it is laid down that
The most excellent Princess Sophia Electress and Duchess dowager of Hanover…is hereby declared to be the next in succession…to the crown and regall Government
which
shall be remain and continue to the said most excellent Princess Sophia and the heirs of her body being Protestants.


Then in the Act 4 and 5 Anne, Chapter 16, it is enacted
that the said Princess Sophia Electress and Duchess dowager of Hanover and the issue of her body and all persons lineally descending from her born or hereafter to be born be and shall be to all intents and purposes whatsoever deemed taken and esteemed natural born subjects of this Kingdom.
Therefore, does it not appear that a person cannot be, in the words of Clause 3 (1),
Next in the line of succession to the Crown
without being also a British subject? It would seem that the person next in the line of succession—and not only that person, but others as well, although it is sufficient for my purpose to refer to the person next in the line of succession—is a British subject. I have, of course, ascertained that there has been no repeal of those portions of the Acts which I have just read to the Committee. I do not think there is in Sub-section (2) any implied repeal of the Act of Anne. But I think the Committee would be glad to have some information and to be assured on that point. I imagine the view that the Government have taken of this matter is that the importance of the disqualification is not that part of the sentence which refers to nationality, but the subsequent part, by which the person is disqualified if he is not of full age and domiciled in some part of the United Kingdom. I imagine the purpose of the Government is to ensure, not so much that the Regent shall be a British subject —for in my submission that necessarily follows from the Statutes—but that he shall be of full age and domiciled in some part of the United Kingdom. If I am right in that understanding, will the right hon. Gentleman be so good as to tell us so? From the depths of his historical knowledge, from which he has already instructed the Committee, he may perhaps be willing to illuminate this point also.

5.21 p.m.

Sir J. Simon: My hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr. Emmott) has raised an interesting, intricate and perhaps amusing point. Like him, I read the letter which appeared in the "Times" newspaper over the signature of Theobald Mathew, who is respected by everybody. I would only observe that the author of the letter is, among other

things, famous in the circles in which he moves as a champion humorist, and he is the author of several admirable volumes, which I recommend everybody to read, called "Forensic Fables." I think it would follow from my hon. Friend's proposition that the former German Emperor and Crown Prince are British subjects. So far as I know, they are descendants of Princess Sophia Electress and Duchess dowager of Hanover. I do not think that proposition is one about which we can be too sure.

Mr. Emmott: I suggest the acceptance of the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman, except in so far as the position was altered or determined by Statute. I think there was such an alteration.

Sir J. Simon: I did not know that. However, I certainly think the answer can be given quite briefly. It is a good principle of our Statute law that full effect must be given to the operation of the later Statutes even when that may have the result of nullifying the effect of earlier Statutes. I will take as an example the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act, 1914, Section 13, which provides that:
A British subject who, when in any foreign State and not under disability, by obtaining a certificate of naturalisation, or by any other voluntary and formal act, becomes naturalised therein"—
that is, in a foreign country—
shall thenceforth he deemed to have ceased to be a British subject.
I know of no reason why it should not have been possible for one of the many descendants of Sophia to have gone through that process, and it follows from the language of the 1914 Act that such a descendant would not be a British subject. It is quite easy to see that one should not assume necessarily that the whole of the law on this subject is as enacted in the reign of Queen Anne. Queen Anne is dead. As I have said, the author of the letter in the "Times" newspaper is a champion humorist, and be that as it may, one cannot do any harm and may do a little good by insisting on the very sensible proposition that any possible Regent shall be a British subject.

5.26 p.m.

Mr. Maxton: There is one question I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman. In drafting this Measure, what


were the reasons for deciding that in Subsection (2) of this Clause the Regent should be of full age, that is to say, 21 years of age, whereas in an earlier Clause it is laid down that the effective age for exercising the functions of Monarchy shall be 18? Is there any reason why a Queen who is 18 years of age should be able to exercise her functions properly, but that, in certain circumstances, it would be conceivable that her uncle, who might be the next heir to the Throne and aged 20 years and six months, should be regarded as incapable of exercising the functions of Regency? For the sake of symmetry in the Measure, it seems to me that if the Monarch is capable of exercising his functions at 18 years of age, the Regent also is capable of doing so temporarily at 18 years of age. I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether there are any special reasons for the difference in the two ages.

5.27 p.m.

The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell): I congratulate the hon. Member on his capacity for finding in the Clauses points which merit discussion. This is a very small point. I think the Committee will appreciate that the reason is that otherwise there might well arise a case where the heir to the Throne was under 18 years of age and where it would be necessary to have a Regent, but that such Regent would only be a few months older. It would then be rather absurd to appoint as Regent someone only six months older than the King. Consequently, it was thought not inappropriate to make certain that in any event there should be a minimum difference of three years in the ages of the person who has to assume responsibility as Regent and the person who is heir to the Throne. I think that is a human reason which will appeal to the hon. Gentleman as being a sufficient one.

Mr. Maxton: The hon. and learned Gentleman made a flattering reference in the opening part of his remarks about my ingenuity in discovering points. May I congratulate him on his ingenuity in finding plausible answers?

5.29 p.m.

Mr. Mabane: A point has been put to me on which I would like to ask for information. What would happen if the heir were a female and subsequent to the death of the father, a son was posthumously borne? What would then be the position in regard to the Regency?

The Chairman: I do not think that question arises on this Clause.

CLAUSE 4.—(Oaths to be taken by, and limitation of power of, Regent.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

5.30 p.m.

Earl Winterton: I wish to raise a question on this Clause which is largely one of nomenclature or phraseology. Subsection (1) states that the Privy Council are "empowered and required" to administer these oaths. I would like to know whether these words are taken from the Act of Settlement. I may lay myself open to the risk of being laughed at by some hon. Members opposite when I say it, but as a member of the Privy Council I am rather jealous of its position and prerogatives and, as far as I know, these very emphatic and rather admonitory words have not appeared before in any Act of Parliament. I think it would be happier if the Sub-section were phrased in this way:
The Regent shall before he acts in or enters upon his office, take and subscribe before the Privy Council the oaths set out in the Schedule…and it shall be the duty of His Majesty's Privy Council to administer those oaths and to enter them in the Council Books.
I think it is important, from a historical point of view, to preserve the prerogatives of the Privy Council. I would remind the Committee that right hon. Gentlemen who are members of the Privy Council are supposed to take precedence of other hon. Gentlemen and that the Privy Council is supposed to have an even longer record of activity than this House or another place. If I am told that these words occur in the Act of Settlement that is another matter; but if this is a new form of phraseology, I think it would be better to use the wording which I have suggested.

5.32 p.m.

The Attorney-General: These words do not appear here for the first time. They were in the Regency Act, 1910, and I fancy they have an even longer history than that, but my Noble Friend will appreciate that I cannot at the moment go any further back than that Act. They are words which have already been


approved by Parliament, and I do not think that any implication can be placed upon them such as my Noble Friend apprehends.

Earl Winterton: I am much obliged to my hon. and learned Friend for his reply. I think it is worth while preserving historical continuity in the wording of these enactments.

CLAUSE 5.—(Guardianship, etc. of Sovereign during Regency.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

5.33 p.m.

Mr. Assheton: Before we pass this Clause I should like to make certain that the Committee is fully aware of its implications. Under paragraph (a), if the Sovereign is under the age of 18 and unmarried his mother, if she is living, is to have the guardianship of his person. No reference is made here to what would happen if his father—or her father—were still living, as might be the case in the event of a Queen having been survived by her husband. Suppose that Queen Victoria had died before the Prince Consort. In those circumstances the Prince Consort would have been deprived under such an enactment as this of the guardianship of his own children. It may have been thought by those who have considered this matter that, in the interests of the State, it is more appropriate that the guardianship should be in the hands of the Regent in such a case but one can well understand a father having some natural objection to such a procedure. I therefore ask the Home Secretary to be good enough to consider the possibility of revising this Sub-section so that both the Regent and the father, in such a case as I have suggested, can be joint guardians of the child.

5.35 p.m.

Sir J. Simon: My hon. Friend has called attention to the effect of the Clause and, as he recognises and as he has stated, the effect of the Clause as it stands is intentional. We considered this point carefully and the question, it seemed to us, was whether it was better to enact that in a case in which the Sovereign is under the age of 18 and unmarried his father

should be constituted guardian, if a widower whose wife had formerly been Queen, or, on the other hand, to rerecognise that it is the mother par excellence who has on family ground the strongest claim to act as guardian in a case where it is the widow of the former Sovereign who survives. We thought, as I hope the Committee will think, that on the whole it is better not to deal with the two cases in exactly the same way but to draw the Clause as it is now drawn. Partly for that reason there is inserted at the beginning of the Clause the phrase:
Unless Parliament otherwise determines.
Of course those words have no actual operative effect but they will be an indication, as it were, on the face of the Statute, that a case may arise in which it may be desirable to modify the general provisions here made. Such modification would, no doubt, be upon the lines to which my hon. Friend has called attention. The Committee will appreciate the fact that this matter has been very carefully considered by many advisers and we think there is a good deal to be said for preserving without modification the provision that the mother of a Sovereign, in these circumstances, shall have the guardianship of his person. Suppose that a change in the occupation of the Throne has taken place because a Queen has died and, let us say, a Prince Consort is left. While it is possible in a special case to modify the provision, upon the whole it is best in such circumstances that the Regent should act as guardian.

CLAUSE 6.—(Power to delegate Royal functions to Counsellors of State.)

5.38 p.m.

Mr. Pickthorn: I beg to move, in page 4, line 3o, to leave out from "Crown" to the end of the Sub-section.
I do not wish to discuss at any length—nor am I sure that it would be in order to do so—the wisdom of the general policy of endeavouring in this Bill to provide for all future contingencies. But I wish to make one remark upon that general policy. It clearly involves the risk that you may think you have been more successful than in fact you have been. There is the risk that if you think


you have legislated for all possible contingencies, you may then go to sleep on this question and may find yourself suddenly faced with a contingency for which no provision has been made. As the Committee has accepted the general policy of legislating on this occasion, so to speak, ad infinitum instead of ad hoc, as has been usual in this connection, we ought to be particularly anxious to avoid the risk involved in principle which I have indicated. The words which I propose to leave out are:
or if the number of such persons next in the line of succession is less than four, then all such persons.
I do not wish to discuss, because I do not think it could usefully be discussed except at great length, the meaning of the words "line of succession" and I shall only offer this remark. The form of words in the Bill may, not unreasonably I think, excite in some minds the suspicion that one view of "line of succession" is being taken for granted and that not at all clearly the better view. The purpose, no doubt, of these two lines in the Sub-section is to avoid the necessity of making or even considering further provision when a particular position has arisen. The position envisaged here is this—that the Sovereign, on the hypothesis of the Clause, is absent or ill and that there are fewer than four persons who are obviously, and by general agreement, next in the line of succession. The Bill proposes that when such a situation has arisen, things shall go on without any further consideration, although the Sovereign is absent or ill and although there are fewer than four, it may be only one or two persons, obviously in the immediate line of succession.
I submit that that is precisely a situation in which, at least consideration should be given to the question of making further provision. If we leave these words in the Bill it will be easy to say, "Now, all the contingencies in connection with the Regency and the possibilities of the total or partial incapacity of a Sovereign have been thought of and arranged for, and we need do no more about it." If the words are omitted however, it will not be possible to work the Measure unless it is certain that there are four, five, or more persons in the line of succession. The effect of omitting the words, I think, would be that if we got to a point at which the Sovereign

was absent or ill or likely to be absent or ill, and if at that time we were not clear who was third or fourth or fifth in the line of succession, then, so to speak, an alarm bell would automatically ring somewhere. I imagine that someone in the Home Office at that point would feel it his duty to remind his Parliamentary chief that this Measure would be unworkable unless further provision were made and that thereupon the Cabinet would consider what provision should be made.
What I am inviting the Committee to do is to consider whether such automatic warning be not highly desirable. God—if I may be allowed to use that convenient monosyllable to denote whatever force beyond our control influences human events—moves in a mysterious way, and Azrael is the least predictable of his ministers. When you get to a point at which you do not know, beyond two or three, who are in the line of succession, you may suddenly be deprived of anybody who can exercise the functions of the Crown and at that point, there ought to be an unescapable and automatic warning that the matter requires examination. In some circumstances, I can imagine that even at that moment further provision would not be necessary, but that is precisely the moment when the responsible authority ought to be, I will not say compelled to make further provision, but at least confronted with a reminder that the question requires consideration. I therefore move this Amendment.

5.43 p.m.

Mr. Maxton: It may be convenient to the right hon. Gentleman if I ask a question on this Clause now. The functions indicated here are not, I imagine, of a very important kind. Presumably in the circumstances for which this Clause provides, the Sovereign is within call and fit to perform at least the task of speaking to some of the people who are close to him. But in considering the point just raised by the hon. Member, I was not concerned with the long-term considerations which he mentioned. I simply want from the Home Secretary some information, for myself and for people outside who may be interested, as to who would be the Counsellors of State at this moment should this contingency arise. There is the wife of the Sovereign and four other persons. I can think as far as two, but beyond that my ideas on the subject are vague, and I should like to know who are


the five Counsellors of State as persons when we set out to meet these particular circumstances.

5.45 p.m.

Sir J. Simon: My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) has taken a very fine point, and I hope that I understood it correctly. First, he points out that it is extremely unlikely that the number of persons next in line of succession will be at any time less than four. I agree that that is so, but, at the same time, it is as well that the possibility, remote as it may be, should be legislated for. There is always a danger when making a general enactment intended to cover every conceivable case that in the course of time there might be some possible development which has not been provided for. The hon. Gentleman's second point, as I understood it, was that these words gave some support to the view that the line of succession of those who claim to be of Royal blood was limited.

Mr. Pickthorn: As I am invited to interrupt: the point I was making was that not only is the possibility very remote of there being less than four in the line of succession, but I am inclined to think that there is no such possibility at all. By legislating against such a contingency you seem to me to run the risk of two evils. One evil is that you make it more likely that it may be assumed without question that the possible lines are fewer than they properly are, and that only descendants of Sophia can possibly succeed. The second evil is that if it is right to suppose you can get down to less than four, then you may do so and still go on believing that every contingency has been provided for when, say, the Sovereign goes to India to attend the Durbar, and there are only two persons left in the line of succession; but the Sovereign may be drowned on the way home, and, of the two persons at home, one may be run over by a bus and the other run over by a taxicab and there would be no means of getting on at all.

Sir J. Simon: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend who has made his point a little clearer to me, but I must say that the better course seems to me to be to provide against this contingency, even if it is remote. It may be that you cannot be certain of preventing that situation

and that if it came to a situation of that kind, Parliament would consider it and deal with it. But that is no reason why we should not make the best provision now that we can devise. In answer to the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton), I think that at this moment the five Counsellors would be Her Majesty the Queen, the Duke of Gloucester, the Duke of Kent, the Princess Royal and Princess Arthur of Connaught.

5.52 p.m.

Mr. Croom-Johnson: I want to put another point of view. As I understand, what is suggested by the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pick-thorn), we are legislating for an extremely remote contingency. It is so remote that it is apparent that something quite unusual and unexpected will have to happen. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary says that we ought to legislate for that. I beg to suggest that that is just the case we ought not to legislate for. Something so remote and unusual would obviously have to happen to produce what is envisaged in this Subsection, that it is an occasion that we ought to leave to be dealt with at the time when it comes up, and that we ought not to take this leap in the dark. I put this converse argument to that which has been addressed to the Committee, and I hope the Home Secretary will again consider it.

Mr. Pickthorn: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: In page 4, line 35, leave out, "not being less than three."—[Sir J. Simon.]

5.54 p.m.

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 4, line 40, at the end, to insert:
so, however, that in relation to a Regent Sub-section (2) of this Section shall have effect as if after the word 'next,' where that word first occurs therein, there were inserted the words 'after the Regent.'
This and the previous Amendment will make it clear that where there is a Regent and the occasion arises for the appointment of Counsellors of State, the Regent should not himself be included by the terms of this Bill as one of the Counsellors. In the earlier Sub-section we considered the case of the Sovereign going abroad, and his Counsellors of State


would naturally include the person who would be Regent. This Amendment will bring the earlier Clauses into line in the event of them having to be used in the case where there is a Regent.

Mr. Pickthorn: May I ask whether it will be possible, before the Bill is finally passed, to rearrange the drafting so that we shall not legislate by reference from one sub-section to another?

Mr. Lees-Smith: That was a point I was about to ask the Attorney-General to consider. The reason for the Amendment is logical, but it makes the last section of the Bill almost unintelligible, and I should like to ask the Attorney-General whether he can so arrange it as to make the Bill simpler to follow.

5.56 p.m.

The Attorney-General: I appreciate that when one first sees the Clause, it looks a little obscure. On the other hand if we read sub-section (2) in the case where a Regent appoints Counsellors of State and after the word "next," insert the words "after the Regent" it naturally excludes him as a Counsellor of State, and it is not very difficult to follow. This is not one of those Bills that large numbers of people all over the country will have to consult and construe in order to know how to run their daily businesses. It does not deal with very frequent or likely circumstances, and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman might allow us to have it in this form, for when it is printed and set out it will not be very obscure.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

5.57 p.m.

Mr. Mander: I wish to draw attention to a matter that I endeavoured to cover by an Amendment, namely, the provision at the end of Sub-section (1) where the Sovereign has power to delegate to the Counsellors of State all his powers with two exceptions, namely, the dissolution of Parliament and the creation of peerages, although in the former case he can do it by telegraph. My suggestion is that the Clause in its present form might not work satisfactorily, and that the Home Secretary should consider whether the creation of peerages ought

not also to be possible by telegraph. I will give two instances where it might be convenient. The first is not very serious, but the second might be. Suppose we had a situation in this country by which it was necessary again, as happened in 1832 and 1911, in circumstances well known to my right hon. Friend, in which the Prime Minister thought fit to advise the Sovereign to create peers in order to over-ride the obstruction of another place. It might be very difficult if the Sovereign were in Australia for the constitution to function in such a case. I know that it may be said that such a situation would be foreseen for a long time ahead, and that we should gradually approach it, and that the Crown would take good care not to be out of the country. That is possible, and I do not press this case.
I think that the other case, however, is a much more serious one. Suppose we had the circumstances of the dissolution of 1905. When the Conservative Government resigned and the new Liberal Government took office, with a general election in January, 1906, the Conservative Government no doubt had certain dissolution honours which they desired to confer. The new Government certainly desired to put some of their Ministers in another place and to retain others in the Commons, in order to keep a proper balance. Circumstances of that kind may well arise again. Surely it would be very awkward, if the Sovereign were in Australia and the dissolution had not been foreseen—because dissolutions sometimes come suddenly—that while he could grant a dissolution by telegram he should be unable to give permission by telegram to the retiring Government or to the new Government to create new peerages. I think that might present a practical difficulty, and I hope that my right hon. Friend, who was so conciliatory about my other suggestion, will be good enough to consider this point also.

6.2 p.m.

Mr. Logan: A few days ago I raised a point in regard to these words:
which may be conveyed by telegraph
and although I mentioned it then in connection with certain coupons, which may not have been appropriate to the case I was discussing, I want to point out that if the instructions for a dissolution are to


come by telegram there is no provision for making certain that it was the Sovereign who had sent the telegram. It is apparent from what we are doing that we want to bring ourselves up to date, but may I suggest that if we are really to be up to date we must be sure of the authenticity of these communications, especially when it is a case of the dissolution of Parliament. That is a very important matter, and if sanction for a dissolution is given there ought to be no doubt whatever that the telegram is a genuine one. Would it not be possible for a special courier to be sent by aeroplane carrying the mandate of the Sovereign for a dissolution? I am not concerned with the question of conferring honours, but if the dissolution of this House were brought about by a bogus telegram it might have a startling effect. If my memory serves me aright there was once a red letter which brought about a dissolution of Parliament, and I have never yet been able to solve the riddle of that red letter, but the fact remains that a dissolution took place. In these days, when it is possible for a monarch to be certified under the phrase "or otherwise," it is possible that telegrams may be authentic or otherwise, and we might have one sent which was not authentic. There are many jesters nowadays, a multiplicity of them, and they are not all on the stage, and it would be a great practical joke to go down in history if some practical joking politician were to send an order for the dissolution of Parliament.
The hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) was forecasting circumstances in which the occurrence of three deaths might lead us into a quandary. One telegram might create a quandary. It is not beyond the realms of possibility for a bogus telegram to be sent. We may wish to modernise our methods but let us not try to move too quickly. I do not think it ought to be within the power of anybody, by the use of the morse code or any other form of telegraphy, to bring about a dissolution of this House and get rid of the lot. If the Monarch were absent, surely there would be accredited messengers attached to his Royal person, there would be couriers. When we are dealing with the affairs of this House and of the Constitution we

really ought to know where we stand. It may suit the right hon. Gentleman who is in charge of the Bill to be able to get on with the business, from the point of view of despatch, but I think that between now and the Third Reading consideration ought to be given to the question whether this particular paragraph should be differently worded. I should like to see the words "which may be conveyed by telegraph" deleted and something more appropriate put in their place.

Sir John Withers: I should like to point out that in any case such a telegram would, without doubt, be sent in private code. It would not be sent openly. There must be a private code which the Sovereign would use in communicating with the Home Office.

6.6 p.m.

The Attorney-General: The hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) expressed his appreciation of my right hon. Friend's attitude towards his earlier suggestion. My right hon. Friend thinks that this time his turn has come, and he does not feel that he can accept the suggestion which is contained in the hon. Member's Amendment. The Committee have heard two speeches, in one of which it was suggested that more use ought to be made of the telegraph and the other taking the view that it ought not to be used as much as is proposed in the Bill. Between those conflicting views we hope that we have hit the happy compromise. The question of a dissolution is one which might arise at short notice. In these days, in whatever part of the world the Sovereign might be, there would probably be facilities for actual conversation over the telephone between him and his Prime Minister, but there might be places from which the Royal authority could only be sent satisfactorily and in an authentic manner by telegram. Such a telegram would, of course, come in code, and in these days there can be little doubt as to the authenticity of information obtained by telegraph. There is a general impression abroad that England has lost the last test match and that is the result of a telegraphic communication.
The Committee will recall the important Preamble to the Abdication Act, which referred to the Assent of the Dominions having been obtained, and that, assent


was secured as the result of telegraphic communications. Therefore, in answer to the point put forward by the hon. Member for the Scotland division (Mr. Logan), we think that to meet the case where a dissolution might be required at shorter notice than would enable a personal communication to be made we should retain the words which allow assent to he given by telegraph. We do not think there is the slightest risk of receiving a forged or bogus authority in answer to a request by the Prime Minister for authority for a dissolution. The hon. Member for East Wolverhampton wants to extend the use of the telegraph, and he mentioned two cases in which it might be used. One, which he did not press very much was concerned with a possible creation of peers in similar circumstances to those in which peers were not, in fact, created either in 1832 or 1911.

Mr. Mander: Their creation was authorised.

The Attorney-General: They were not in fact created, but, no doubt, circumstances might have arisen in which they would have been created. They were created, I think, in somewhat similar circumstances in the Reign of Queen Anne.

Mr. Mander: We are using precise language, and I should say that authority for their creation was given by the Crown.

The Attorney-General: What the hon. Member is envisaging is a situation similar to that which arose in 1832 and in 1911 resulting—though it was not the case on either of those occasions—in the necessity for the actual creation of peers. My right hon. Friend reminds me that the existence of the Parliament Act makes that contingency still more remote. But leaving that apart for the moment, it is obvious, as history shows, that such a situation is one of which everyone has very long notice. It is not a question of action having to be taken overnight, or even within a period of a month or two months. There would be long notice, and proper steps could be taken to deal with it if such an eventuality did arise. Slightly different considerations apply to the hon. Member's second point, which was concerned with conferring dissolution honours and raising to the peerage Ministers who might desire to be in another place. There would be no vital difficulty in delaying the actual announcement of the dissolution honours.
We can get authenticated documents to and from distant parts of the world in a comparatively short time, and those who might be considered as properly entitled to dissolution honours could well be asked to wait for three or four weeks if the Sovereign were absent, say, in Australia. As to the position of Ministers who might wish to go to another place, we know that it takes some time after a dissolution before Parliament is elected and back again at Westminster, and any who received peerages to take them to another place would have to wait that period before they could have the chance of performing their functions in another place. I think the hon. Member will come to the conclusion that there is really no likelihood of actual difficulties arising and that the machinery in this Clause provides, on the whole, the most appropriate procedure.

6.14 p.m.

Mr. Maxton: This part of the Clause which we are discussing gives to the Sovereign some power which presumably he did not have before, and that is power to give his assent, by telegram, to the dissolution of Parliament. Am I to understand from the right hon. Gentleman's answer to the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) that the Sovereign is debarred from raising a person to the dignity of the Peerage by telegram? As I have admitted, I do not know much about these things. If His Majesty were in Australia and, say, the Chief Patronage Secretary had done something wonderful—[Laughter]. I take the most unlikely case so that there can be no misunderstanding, and I would not mind if the Patronage Secretary were promoted to the other place any day—and suppose that His Majesty felt that that act on the part of the Patronage Secretary, or of his chief lieutenant, was of such a sort as to merit His Majesty's special recognition; is the right hon. Gentleman telling us that it would be impossible for His Majesty to intimate by telegraph the elevation of the Patronage Secretary, so that we would have the good news at the earliest possible moment?

6.16 p.m.

The Attorney-General: I can easily imagine that such an announcement might be made, but my right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary could not get his full deserts except under a Warrant autho-


rising the Lord Chancellor to pass the necessary Letters Patent under the Great Seal, and that would have to be duly authenticated by His Majesty.

Clauses 7 and 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

SCHEDULE.—(Oaths to be Regent.)

6.18 p.m.

The Lord Advocate (Mr. T. M. Cooper): I beg to move, in page 6, line 14, to leave out "to" and to insert "by".

This is a drafting alteration by way of manuscript Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Preamble agreed to.

Bill reported; as amended, considered.

CLAUSE 2.—(Regency during total incapacity of the Sovereign.)

6.22 p.m.

Sir J. Simon: I beg to move, in page 2, line 19, to leave out "four," and to insert "three."
This Amendment was indicated in the Committee just now to be in accordance with the general wish of hon. Members. I, therefore, change the number of persons who are to certify from four to three and reduce the total number to a maximum of five and leave out the words:
person who, excluding any persons disqualified under this Act from becoming Regent, is next in the line of succession to the Crown, the.
In the case of the total incapacity of the Sovereign it was pointed out just now that it might be invidious for the next in succession to have to certify as to his incapacity, and in accordance with the view expressed by the Committee we are prepared, as I have indicated already, to reduce the total number of persons to five by leaving out that individual.

Mr. Lees-Smith: Might I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman could, at this stage, explain his second Amendment a little more clearly?

Sir J. Simon: Perhaps I might read to the House the opening words of the Clause as they will be if the two Amendments are made. They will then run:

If the following persons or any three or more of them, that is to say, the wife or husband of the Sovereign, the Lord Chancellor,
and so on.

6.25 p.m.

Earl Winterton: I hope that neither the Chief Whip nor the Secretary of State will think I am making the slightest reflection upon the procedure which we have now adopted, but, speaking generally, and except in special circumstances, it is exceedingly undesirable that we should have to consider a manuscript Amendment upon the Report stage immediately following the Committee stage. I do not think that I should be in order in pursuing this point, but that fact strengthens my case. The ordinary Member of the House has no power, so far as I know, to object to the Report stage following the Committee stage, but I hope that the procedure of taking the Report stage on any important Bill immediately following the Committee stage, and then bringing forward a manuscript Amendment, will not be generally followed. There may be special circumstances in this case, however, and I take no further exception to it.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 2, line 21, leave out from "the" to "Lord" in line 23.—[Sir J. Simon.]

6.26 p.m.

Mr. Logan: I beg to move, in page 2, line 27, to leave out "or otherwise."
At an earlier stage this evening, the question of the value of words, as herein mentioned, was referred to, and one hon. Gentleman said that in his opinion he was mad, but that the rest of the world would not have the same opinion about him. Either I am mad, or these words have no meaning. As I understand the Clause—[Interruption.] I trust that I will not be interrupted, because this matter is a little bit technical and is not in the same classification as myself. The incapacity of the Sovereign is to be determined on the evidence of physicians. A few moments ago, when I expressed my view with regard to the words "or otherwise," the Home Secretary was not too clear in his definition. My hon. Friend below the Gangway gave us a definition which we could understand quite clearly, as to what the words "or otherwise" meant. He said they meant, not the


physicians, the alienists or the men trained in medicine and expert in the knowledge of the body and the mind, but that your pals, the friends round about you, ought to be able to say: "He is a bit touched," or "He is not a bit touched." That definition came not from a learned Member of the Government but from an ordinary layman, which shows how very careful one has to be in the company one keeps, in regard to mentality.
If one understands the meaning of words correctly—and in an Act of Parliament one ought so to understand them, because they ought to have a meaning. [An HON. MEMBER: "You are repeating yourself."] It is necessary to repeat in the House of Commons so that ideas can be instilled into the minds of those who may have to give a verdict. The question is whether or not we should let a matter go without discussing it. Repetition is essential in the House of Commons. My point is that—and in the repetition hon. Members will understand better my reason for proposing that we should leave out these words—if the Monarch were considered to be incapacitated, and it was felt necessary to appoint a Regent, would it be right, in so grave a situation, to decide, on the gossip of the Court or of those associated with him, that the Monarch was not sane?
If one were having a look at George Bernard Shaw's "Apple Cart," I could understand how one would enjoy the joke of these people round about the Monarch starting to consider whether he was right or wrong; but surely, when a matter is being dealt with in the House of Commons, even by one from the Scotland Division, the meaning of the words ought to be known. I contend that the words "or otherwise" have no relevance whatever to the application of this Clause. It may be all right from the legal point of view, but not from the point of view of the grammarian, if there be such a one; the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) ought to be able to enlighten us as to what the words "or otherwise" have to do with the Clause. The decision is to be taken on the evidence of physicians, and the question of "or otherwise" does not enter into it. If the mentality or the sanity of the King is questioned, it is only those who have authority and knowledge of the particular subject who are qualified to express an opinion on such a matter.
It is because I know I am on right ground that I am arguing, even against the opinion expressed by the Home Secretary, that these words should be retained. I know that Acts of Parliament have been passed in which the phraseology has been so ungrammatical that, when one is asked to give a definition of some specified portion, one is not able to understand what was really meant. In my younger days I was taught that, when there is a difference of opinion, we ought to be true in our definition, and, even when we are true in our definition, it is quite possible that we may have an argument about what we really agree to be the meaning. But there is no meaning in the words "or otherwise." What do they mean? They mean, not physicians, but other persons. If this matter were submitted to any of the great authorities on English, they would think it was we who were incapacitated. I do not want my name to go down as that of one who voted for something so nonsensical; I do not want my sons to read how ignorant their father was of English grammar.

6.34 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I beg to second the Amendment.
Earlier this afternoon, during the Committee stage, we had the advantage of hearing the answer of the Home Secretary on this subject, and I am bound to say that it left me entirely unconvinced, though I was willing to be convinced if he could have adduced any logical reason for retaining these words. I cannot understand on what these distinguished people are going to act. in deciding whether a person is physically or mentally incapable of discharging the functions of the Crown, unless it be medical evidence. The Home Secretary suggested that nurses might be called in, and that the Monarch himself might desire to have evidence produced before the tribunal. I should have no objection to that if it were medical evidence, but can it be expected that these people would allow other evidence than medical evidence to outweigh the evidence submitted by distinguished alienists? It is not to be imagined that some mere country doctor, or some quite undistinguished member of the medical profession, would be the person advising them. If there were any other cause to be assigned than a medical cause, I could understand that


it might be necessary to have other than medical experts called in, but an ordinary justice who is asked to certify that a person may be removed as a lunatic for purposes of observation has, before he can sign the document, to have the evidence of a doctor submitted to him. I cannot understand why it is thought advisable in this case that these people should be able to act on something which is either not medical evidence or which, being given by persons who are not medical people, can be held to outweigh the evidence of expert medical men.
The whole problem with regard to these matters, as it is represented to us by the medical profession, of whom I am no great admirer, is that nobody but a medical man can say whether a person is insane or not—that it is entirely a question of medical definition, and that mere isolated acts, which might convince a layman that a person was not in full possession of his faculties, are not always to be accepted as conclusive evidence. I hope that for the sake of clearness of definition the Minister will be able to accept this Amendment. It is no use saying that we could trust the present Speaker of the House of Commons and the various other dignitaries mentioned. There have been Speakers in the past of whom the House itself has in the course of time been very gravely suspicious, and has thought that they have been acting, not merely contrary to the desires of the House, but contrary to the interests of the country. As to the other people mentioned, there have been black sheep in the past, even in flocks that had full-bottomed wigs.
If we are legislating here for all time, we ought to take into consideration the possibility that there might be, at some time of popular excitement, some cabal formed of which these three or four more or less distinguished people might be very prominent members, or that they might be under the influence of the members of that cabal. For these reasons it seems to me that the Monarch should be assured that he will not be virtually deposed, at any rate temporarily, and his duties handed over to a Regent, unless upon the evidence of people whose professional training entitles them to express an opinion. For these reasons I hope the Minister will find it possible to accept the deletion of these words.

6.40 p.m.

Mr. Lees-Smith: I think my hon. Friends have raised a point which is worth taking into account. I gather that what they have in mind is that conceivably a cabal might be formed against the Sovereign, and that in such circumstances the opinion of a qualified medical man might be entirely set aside and the Sovereign practically deposed, as a result of the application of these words "or otherwise." It would be possible to make the phrase "or otherwise" take the place of the verdict of medical men, and I think that what my hon. Friends are really asking is whether the Clause could not be so worded that in any case the opinion of the physicians would have to be taken into account and not set aside. That would require, instead of the words "or otherwise," some such words as
satisfied on the evidence of physicians and such others.
as these officials might consult. The right hon. Gentleman will see that the word "or" might exclude them, while the word "and" would at any rate ensure that in any circumstances their evidence would be on record.

6.42 p.m.

Mr. Charles Williams: A point which has been exercising my mind during practically the whole of the discussion on this matter is that these words as they stand mean that the decision will be based on the evidence of physicians or on other evidence, and the whole thing might be based on some other evidence than that of physicians. I believe that the intention of the Government, and the intention expressed in the explanation that we had earlier, is that it should be on the evidence of physicians and on other grounds, so that the evidence of the physicians would be backed up by other evidence of which instances were given earlier. I think we ought to be quite clear, before we leave this Amendment, that it cannot be done purely on the alternative evidence of other people who are not physicians; you want to couple the evidence of the physicians with the other evidence that may be of value. I hope I have made the point clear; it has been exercising the minds of several of us for a considerable time.

6.44 p.m.

Mr. Maxton: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept this Amendment,


and not any other form of words. The Amendment as moved is to delete these two words. At the beginning the Home Secretary treated the matter very lightly, but as the discussion has gone on it has raised a whole lot of other possibilities. For instance, I have never thought of the possibility that was put forward by the hon. Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison), who thought that the Prime Minister would be an appropriate person whose word might be taken as to the physical or mental condition of the King. I can see great possibilities there. It is not always the present Government or the present Prime Minister who will be in office in this land. Others might be there [An HON. MEMBER: "The hon. Member for West Fife!"] That is a case in point, and one can see all sorts of situations arising if it is possible for anybody—because the words "or otherwise" open up an unlimited field—to come forward and say, "This man is not physically fit for the job"; and, according to the view that has been put up from the Government side of the House and from behind me, that type of voice may be more reliable than a medical one.
We all know in our experience cases of people saying of a person holding a particular position that he is not fit for the job and ought to be shifted, whereas no medical man would ever certify him as insane or physically incapable. Is that the situation that is intended to be created by the use of the words "or otherwise," that if at any time a monarch becomes unpopular the active political people or Court people of the day start a. bit of gossip going about him and, cutting out medical evidence—because "or otherwise" is taken as a complete alternative to medical evidence—they may put up their case to the Speaker of the House of Commons, the Lord Chancellor, the Master of the Rolls and the Lord Chief Justice, and get a Regent established and to all intents and purpose depose the Monarch on the ground of physical or mental disability without any medical man being brought in at all? It might have been done on the last occasion—a convenient device perhaps—but if it is being brought forward seriously as a device and not, as I thought, a mere bit of verbiage, those who are sponsoring the Measure ought to come forward and defend more seriously than they have done the insertion of these words and

tell us that they have been put in there to meet a serious contingency in a serious way.
If they are put in for a serious purpose, they are much too vague. Something more specific should be put in. If they are mere verbiage, I suggest that they be cut out. I agree that it would not do to place our destinies as individuals merely in the hands of medical men. No one would say that a medical man's dictum would be the last word even on matters of health. The Clause already meets that point by having responsible experienced laymen, in the four persons mentioned, to survey the expert medical opinion and decide whether it is of such a sort as to justify them, in addition to their own knowledge as ordinary men, in proposing that the King should not perform his functions but that a Regent should be put in his place. I seriously urge the right hon. Gentleman to accept the Amendment. Failing acceptance of the Amendment, though I cannot pretend to feel so hotly on it as the hon. Member for the Scotland Division (Mr. Logan) does, I shall be very pleased to accompany him into the Lobby.

6.49 p.m.

Earl Winterton: I must say I am rather convinced by the hon. Member's argument. I share his difficulty as to the wording of the Clause as it stands. We cannot treat any part of the Bill lightly. It is an important Bill and this is an important Amendment, and I hope my right hon. Friend will give a considered reply to this point. I should have thought that in order to express the real intention of the Clause it should have been worded in the manner suggested by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams). If, as we assume, this is a Bill for all time, is there not the faintest possibility that all four highly placed persons mentioned in the Bill might be to some extent biased for some reason? Is there not a danger of that happening under the stress of tremendous events 50 or 100 years hence, when they would be able to make a certification of lunacy without any medical attendance? Is not that really what the Government and the House are seeking, that we should take into consideration, and not merely medical evidence but other evidence as well? As worded, the Clause seems to create


the possibility that they might come to their conclusion without taking medical evidence into regard at all.

6.51 p.m.

Sir J. Simon: This point has occupied some time in Committee and again now on Report. I am not complaining of it, but I am just reminding the House that that is so. I have not the slightest shadow of doubt in the world that the words as drawn, as far as I have any power to construe an Act of Parliament, are perfectly appropriate to the case. I would not lead any one to suppose that what I am going to suggest is in my view an improvement or is more than the addition of unnecessary words. I am not prepared to contemplate the proposition that some unidentified successor of yours, Sir, in alliance with the Lord Chief Justice, the Lord Chancellor and the Master of the Rolls is in any conceivable circumstances going to arrive at a conclusion of this sort except upon material which four wise, impartial people would accept. I can conceive a case of obvious infirmity of body where you would not want elaborate expert evidence. I am, however, quite prepared to agree that in another place there shall be substituted some such words as these—"declare in writing that they are satisfied on evidence, which shall include that of physicians." I think the argument of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair) was perfectly overwhelming, but this is a deliberative Assembly and, if it is the view of the House that those words are an improvement, I am prepared to take that course, though I do not think it will make any material difference. At the worst it will only mean that in some conceivable case which we hope will never arise an eminent medical man will receive a fee for doing something which any honest human being could do.

Mr. Logan: I can give the right hon. Gentleman the retort courteous by saying, "Thank you," and asking leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

6.55 p.m.

Mr. Mander: I should like to ask the Attorney-General to give us some further

explanation as to the application of this Measure to the Dominions. We had a statement from the Home Secretary on Tuesday. I daresay it was perfectly correct, but an eminent authority in the country has expressed quite a different view. Some reference has been made to a letter in the "Times." I am going to refer to a letter in the "Scotsman," the contention being to the effect that the Bill in its present form is unlimited, that its application extends to all the Dominions except those where it is limited by Statute, and that its operation will be excluded only in Canada, the Irish Free State and South Africa. That would be under Section 4 of the Statute of Westminster. The situation resulting would be that in Australia, both the Commonwealth and the States, and in New Zealand, it would not be possible to legislate. They would have no power to do so. In the case of Canada, the case is a very doubtful one, and it would be very desirable to include Canada in any legislation passing through the House at present. It is further contended that in any circumstances the Measure would extend to Newfoundland. These are serious points put forward by an eminent authority and I hope the Government will state the view that they take.

6.58 p.m.

The Attorney-General: My right hon. Friend in moving the Second Reading made a fairly full statement as to the position of the Bill relative to the Dominions. I should like to read one or two sentences. He said:
I must explain to the House what is the range of this Measure and show that in drafting it we have not overlooked the principles which are now recognised as governing the relation between laws passed by this United Kingdom Parliament and the Dominion legislatures. The Bill deals with the exercise of Royal functions and the Bill will be effective, when it becomes an Act, in the United Kingdom and in the Colonies. So far as the Dominions are concerned it will be for each Dominion Government to decide whether any legislation is necessary."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd February, 1937; col. 1452, Vol. 319.]
He went on to say that as far as we are aware the introduction of such legislation would not in any case be contemplated unless the necessity should hereafter actually arise. The hon. Member, says an eminent authority, has written a letter to the "Scotsman" stating a particular view as to the effect of the Bill, if it becomes an Act, on Australia and New


Zealand, and he thinks the position in Canada is doubtful. I hope the House will support us in thinking it is much better that we should not make pronouncements here as to the effect of a Bill, particularly on a Dominion. The Dominions, as the hon. Member knows, under the Balfour Declaration—apart from the Statute of Westminster—are autonomous communities. With regard to this Bill, they agreed to our passing a United Kingdom Bill. The exact effect of that Bill on them is, in our view, a matter for them to consider, and, if any statement is desirable, for them to make. It would be unwise for the United Kingdom Government to make statements here on this matter. The Dominions have been kept informed of what we were doing, they fully agreed to our passing this Bill, and the exact position in regard to each Dominion is a matter much better left for them to consider, and for them to make any statement about in the first instance.

Mr. Mander: In these two cases they could not legislate.

The Attorney-General: That is a matter for them to consider.

BRITISH SHIPPING (CONTINUANCE OF SUBSIDY) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

7.2 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Dr. Burgin): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
At 12 noon to-day the Cunard-White Star liner Aquitania, which has among her passengers the President of the Board of Trade, was still 40o miles from Southampton, so perhaps the House will once more grant me the indulgence of allowing me to introduce a shipping Measure. Although it seems only a few hours since the whole of the material covered by this Bill was discussed at length on the Financial Resolution, we now present to the House the necessary legislation. The Bill continues the Acts of 1935 and 1936, and the changes in the earlier Acts are the insertion of the dates 1937 for 1936 and 1936 for 1935 as the case may be. There cannot be any hon. Member, or any

member of the general public, who is now unfamiliar with the broad case of the necessity for a subsidy from public funds to the tramp section of the British Mercantile Marine. That the Mercantile Marine is an essential national asset is not disputed; that the tramp section is particularly valuable is not disputed; that a few years ago that section of the industry was in an extremely bad way is not disputed.
The Command Paper that has been issued, giving the Fourth Report of the Tramp Shipping Administration Committee, gives details which must convince the most obstinate reader. It is in these circumstances that we bring before the House to-day this renewal Bill. The necessity for bringing the Bill forward is because, under the British Shipping Assistance Act, 1936, the subsidy came to an end at the 31st December last. As was stated in the Debate on the Financial Resolution, in 1936 payments have been made in respect of subsidy for the first, second and third quarters of the year amounting to £1,163,183. Payments for the fourth quarter have yet to be made. As soon as they are made the usual White Paper will be published showing the total payments distributed, the name of each recipient and the amount each has drawn. It is not expected that publication will be delayed, but we are still shortly after the turn of the year and it has not been physically possible to complete the whole of the inquiries preceding the distribution of the subsidy. Hitherto the subsidy has been distributed quarterly. The Financial Memorandum issued recently showed that the Government's proposal this year varies, and that it is suggested, having regard to the high rate of freights which are prevailing, that it would be better to wait till the end of the year before any distribution was made.
The President of the Board of Trade, when the question of giving monetary assistance for shipping was first raised, took the point that the industry should, as far as possible, be put on terms, and so the proviso was made that if, by the aid of the financial assistance, or the alteration of world conditions, or a combination of both, freight rates rose to a particular level, the subsidy should cease to be paid. At the rates now prevailing subsidy would not be paid. No one can foretell the course of freight rates. There


has been a sharp decline in the few weeks of 1937. No one can say whether that decline will be arrested, or whether rates will be maintained at any particular level. The suggestion of the Government, therefore, is that we should wait till 31st December before any payment of subsidy is made. If during the 12 months levels have been maintained, and the average of the year is sufficiently high to show that the subsidy is not required, no subsidy will be paid. It is on that footing that the Financial Resolution proceeds and that the Bill comes now before the House. When the question of the renewal of the £2,000,000 subsidy for a further year came under consideration the industry was notified that the subsidy, if granted by Parliament for 1937, would not be renewed for a further period, and that the plans of the Administrative Committee and of individual owners should be made on the definite assumption that the subsidy to tramp shipping should cease at the end of 1937.
One of the great effects of the subsidy has been the measure of co-operation in the industry that has been secured. The President of the Board of Trade, in notifying the industry that it was proposed to ask Parliament to grant a further £2,000,000 for 1937, and also notifying them that 1937 was to be the last year, added that he trusted it would be possible for the industry so to organise as to ensure that the measure of co-operation secured by reason of the subsidy should continue after 31st December, 1937, although the subsidy did not continue to be paid. The Government attach the greatest possible importance to the continuation of the measure of organisation which has been taken in the industry, and they rely on the industry so arranging matters within its own limits that the measure of co-operation is not disbanded and dissipated at the end of the year.
Is there any hon. Member who needs any convincing whether this subsidy was necessary? If any hon. Member takes the trouble even to scratch the surface in comparing the position of the tramp section of the shipping industry in the years 1930–34 with its position in 1935–36, he will find that a highly individualistic, fiercely competitive industry, which a few years ago was rapidly approaching

bankruptcy, was selling its assets by forced sales, was in a state of complete despondency and hopelessness, has been turned into an industry organised not only nationally, but internationally, on a basis that has brought about co-operation not only between tramp and tramp but between tramp and cargo liner shipping, that the forced sales have stopped, and that the industry is in a position to take advantage of any improvement that may come to it. It is really a remarkable change of affairs that has taken place over such a short time. When the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) comes to speak it will be interesting to know what alternative suggestions might have been put forward that would have had any possibility of bringing about anything like the same result.

Mr. E. J. Williams: If you reorganise why not take control of the industry?

Dr. Burgin: Nationalisation, I hear the hon. Member say.

Mr. Arthur Greenwood: Why not?

Dr. Burgin: It is amazing to hear that in any part of the House there can be anybody really desirous of having national control of the shipping industry. There have been suggestions of that kind in previous Debates, but it finds no part in the Amendment tabled by hon. Members opposite. They are prepared to give assistance to this industry even under private ownership, as their Amendment clearly shows. Some people are inclined to talk as if cargo liners were so invading the province of the tramp that the days of the tramp's prosperity must necessarily be of short duration. So long as bulk cargoes—oil, wheat and grain, coal, ore and sugar—have to be transferred from producing countries to consuming countries, the tramp will be an essential part of the Mercantile Marine of any country. These trades are seasonal, and whether it is due to harvests, industry, and the changes in purchasing power in different countries, quite apart from any service—and it is a very big service—which the cargo liner can give, there will always be the need for the freight ship free to pick up cargoes in any country at any time, and to carry them to any other destination. To this country with its large trade in food and material the value of the tramp shipping


industry is obvious and cannot be overestimated.
The machinery of administration was laid down in the first White Paper in the year 1934, and that machinery, organised by the shipowners themselves, has worked admirably. It would be the desire of any Government spokesman to pay the wannest possible tribute to those members of the shipping industry who voluntarily have taken upon themselves the burden of public work necessary to organise the industry and to administer the subsidy in the way they have done. The right hon. Gentleman opposite smiles, and seems to suggest that the tasks which have been performed within the industry are to be treated lightly. The whole system of freights maintenance schemes that has been worked out hat been produced by voluntary work within the industry. The measure of co-operation which has been brought about has been very great. The facts are set out in Command Paper 5363, and I do not propose to go through them in detail, but I call the attention of hon. Members to them, and if points are raised, no doubt there are spokesmen acquainted with the industry who will answer them. The way in which the different routes have been organised, and the effect immediately upon freights so produced, are very striking indeed and the whole of the stimulus by which that has been brought about has been the subsidy—the power to withhold the subsidy, and the power to grant the subsidy if reasonable conditions are complied with. It is almost surprising that in these circumstances, when hon. Members and right hon. Members opposite do not object to the subsidy as such, there should be opposition to this particular subsidy.
The reasoned Amendment which stands in the names of right hon. and hon. Members opposite recognises the importance to the State of the Mercantile Marine—we are on common ground so far—and is prepared to grant it proper assistance. I am very glad to recognise that Members of His Majesty's Opposition are prepared to grant to this industry proper assistance. No doubt one of their spokesmen will, on some occasion, indicate the nature of the assistance they agree to grant, and what in their view is proper assistance. We should be very interested and very glad to hear it. The form of assistance which alone has been successful has been

monetary assistance granted on conditions. It would be very interesting indeed to learn what form of assistance hon. Members would have been prepared to have granted that could, by any stretch of the imagination, have been capable of producing the results that have accrued. The Amendment goes on to say that hon. Members opposite,
cannot assent to the continuation of a subsidy under conditions which are swelling private profits instead of ensuring the efficient reorganisation of the industry and the establishment of a higher standard of wages and conditions for sailors.
Let us look at what is meant by the story of swelling private profits. Does it mean that no company that has efficiently carried on its business and has proved itself capable of weathering the years of depression, is to be invited to come into these freight maintenance regulation schemes? Does it mean that the big companies, which are precisely the ones which can torpedo a scheme or arrangement if they so desire, are not to receive subsidy? Does it mean discrimination between voyages carried out by ships according to who is their owner? The scheme of the Government has been, that a vessel complying with certain conditions and carrying a cargo under certain rules, and run by an owner prepared to pay National Maritime Board wages and to apply National Maritime Board rules as to officers and crew—a vessel run under those conditions, qualifies on its voyage for subsidy regardless of who it the owner. The Amendment seems to suggest that you are to say to an owner of such a vessel who applies for subsidy at the end of the voyage and sends in the account, besides proving that he has complied with all these conditions, "You have to give an undertaking that the subsidy, if received, will not go into your general account, and that on no account Must your private profits be swollen." The House will not regard that as a serious contention. We have long since got past the day when £5 notes paid into the bank were identified—this is for depreciation, this is for reserve, this is for dividend, and this is for salaries. Money that is paid into an account is treated for general purposes as the owner of the account thinks best.
If the object of a subsidy is in part to assist these companies when they have not made voyage earnings and have not in consequence increased their reserve


and been able to put money aside for depreciation—if one of the objects of the subsidy is to see that the depreciation accounts are built up in order that moneys may be available for the building of new tonnage, then, is it not equally essential to see that these companies are run under conditions of finance which attract popular approval? Since when has the idea gained currency that those who provide the capital for a shipping company are not entitled to reasonable dividend on their money?
The fourth report of the Tramp Shipping Administration Committee gives particulars of 251 shipping companies, and I hope that hon. Members will have read the material paragraphs dealing with the rate of return on capital that has been made by those companies taken by and large. It is difficult to find out how far there has been failure to make adequate allotments to depreciation accounts, and how far there is inability to set aside the requisite amounts for rebuilding and replacing tonnage. The type of assistance which hon. Members opposite would have occasion to give would be assistance to the industry which brought about efficient reorganisation. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman, when he comes to speak, will give some details of what he means and tell us what reorganisation he aims at and how he proposes to bring it about, and why he thinks the measures of reorganisation that have been taken are not adequate. They ask for a higher standard of wages and better conditions for sailors. The plain facts are that wages have risen and that there is a measure of control over this very matter. Surely, it is an odd way, either to increase wages or to help sailors, if you allow an industry to fall entirely into decay. I need not go into further detail at this stage with regard to this proposal.
I will now turn for a moment or two to the actual details of the Bill. The Measure is a simple one, and follows to a large extent the wording of the Act of 1936. Clause 1 is divided into a number of Sub-sections, and Clause 2 is the title. We are, therefore, virtually dealing with a one Clause Bill. Clause 1, Subsection (1), proposes to extend the period in respect of which subsidies are payable so as to include tramp voyages and parts of tramp voyages carried out in 1937. This is done by the mere

Amendment of dates in the two previous Acts. In considering the effect of the Amendments it must be remembered that Clause 1, Sub-section (4), of the Bill has to be taken as amended by the 1936 Act. If hon. Members contrast this Bill with the 1935 Act, they will be in error because that Act was itself amended by the 1936 Act. That is all very elementary, but I thought that I ought to make it quite plain. In the method adopted in the Bill, all the conditions laid down in the original Act for the payment of subsidy will apply to the 1937 subsidy, without the necessity of restating them in the new Act. Clause r, Sub-section (2) is the same except as to dates, as Subsection (3) of the 1936 Act.
The sums necessary for the subsidy and the administrative expenses are to be defrayed out of public moneys, and must not exceed £2,000,000. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield in one of his earlier speeches, which I was reading with profit to myself a little while ago, thought that the £2,000,000 would progressively increase as the years went by, and said that two spoonfuls would not prove sufficient in future years, and the dose might have to be increased. This shows the same conditions, and the £2,000,000 is the maximum. Clause 1, Sub-section (3), is of a formal character and corresponds with Sub-section (4) of the 1936 Act. It applies to the 1937 subsidy the provision in the 1935 Act, under which the Board of Trade are given power to decide whether any tramp voyage, or part of a voyage is carried out in the year to which the subsidy relates. That is the whole of the Bill. The House will see we are dealing with a one Clause Measure, the object of which is to renew, mutatis mutandis, the Acts of 1936 and of 1935. I move the Second Reading with confidence. The facts support the Government in their desire to bring this legislation forward. Whatever the wicket may have been at Adelaide, this is a batsman's wicket.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Greenwood: I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
whilst this House recognises the importance to the State of the mercantile marine and is prepared to grant it proper assistance, it cannot assent to the continuation of a subsidy under conditions which are swelling private profits instead of ensuring the efficient reorganisation of the industry and the estab-


lishment of a higher standard of wages and conditions for sailors in recognition of their arduous calling.
I am very glad to find the Parliamentary Secretary in such a combative mood. If he is the batsman, I am the bowler, and I hope it will prove to be a bowler's wicket. I am very sorry that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade himself is not here, partly because I think his presence would have been desirable in this Debate, and partly because I have some understanding of the responsibilities which are falling upon the Parliamentary Secretary on this occasion. I should hope that the President of the Board of Trade will not return in the "Queen Mary" but in one of his own tramp steamers or in a cargo liner employing Lascars and living on Lascar rates of wages. This appears to be the Parliamentary Secretary's swan song on this question of subsidies for tramp shipping, and no doubt that is why he has been a little more aggressive than on previous occasions.
I do not propose to refer specially to the question of the conditions of life at sea, because I have spoken about them before, but I think one is entitled to refer to the conditions on which the subsidy was originally given. The Parliamentary Secretary has spoken again to-night about the fulfilment of the conditions, and one of those conditions is the payment of wages on the National Maritime Board's scale. I have a case here of a ship, the steamship "Baron Inchcape." A letter was addressed to the Board of Trade away back in November, and a further letter was sent in January, and the Board of Trade was good enough to acknowledge by postcard the receipt of the letters, but the reply did not reach the organisation which was concerned until the very day on which we had our first discussion in the House this week, and then it was sent by hand. I am glad at least that the Board of Trade can be active on occasions, but it has been a matter of two months' delay before this question has been inquired into. The complaint was that during two voyages the steamship "Baron Inchcape" paid wages below the National Maritime Board's scale. That boat is owned by a company which gets the subsidy from the Government. This is the reply, which was very hastily sent by hand on Monday. Who applied the

ginger in the Board of Trade, I do not know, but no doubt the hon. Gentleman does.
I am directed by the Board of Trade to refer to your letters of the 24th November, 1936, and the 7th January, 1937 … regarding the rates of wages paid to certain of the navigating and engineer officers serving on the steamship 'Baron Inchcape' on two voyages commencing 3rd September, 1935, and 2nd September, 1936, respectively.
The Tramp Shipping Subsidy Committee have been in communication with the owners of the vessel on this matter, and have ascertained that the error in respect of the wages paid to the first and second mates and the first, second, and third engineers arose inadvertently ….
That is a long word, but it is a very good one and appears to cover "a multitude of sins." The reply goes on:
… and that when the matter was brought to the owners' notice in connection with the opening of articles for the subsequent voyage of the vessel, the position was rectified.
The owners have satisfied the Committee that they have taken the necessary steps to make good to the officers concerned the difference between the rates actually paid to them in respect of the previous voyages and the rates applicable under the appropriate National Maritime Board Agreement.
In these circumstances the Committee regard the matter as satisfactorily settled.
I am bound to say that a letter like that fills me with the deepest apprehension. I cannot believe that any responsible shipping company can underpay people—what was the word?—inadvertently. I cannot believe that the Tramp Shipping Subsidy Committee is doing its work effectively. I hope the hon. Gentleman will, by the courtesy of the House, be entitled to make his explanation of that, because again he has stated that there has been a fulfilment of these honourable conditions with regard to wages.
In the House of Commons over two years ago now I drew attention to a speech of the President of the Board of Trade, made in Leeds. I regretted when I spoke that he had not made it in this House, but at least it was a brave speech. He said:
Power had been taken to prevent black-legging in the chartering of tramp steamers that were entitled to the subsidy. They would see to it that the portion of the British Mercantile Marine that received subsidies should not blackleg in wages or other conditions that were under the control of the National Maritime Board.
We have raised from time to time the question of Lascars employed in British


ships. I have said in this House that Lascars are all of them born in Aden and are, therefore, British citizens, and that the Chinese sailors on British ships are all born in Hong Kong and ate, therefore, British citizens. I am assured that that is broadly the truth, and I am going to accept the position now, that these Lascars and so on are British citizens who are, tinder the spirit of this Act, entitled to the protection of the British Maritime Board and its regulations. I quoted in an earlier Debate in the House from the form issued by the Tramp Shipping Committee for applications for subsidy in respect of tramp voyages, and I want the Parliamentary Secretary and the House to follow my argument here, because we have succeeded time after time, as a result of questions pat by my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherhithe. (Mr. Benjamin Smith), in eliciting a little more information about the position of these Lascar seamen. The form in question has to be filled up by a tramp ship-owner or by a cargo-liner Owner Who is, for the purposes of the Act, a tramp ship-owner for the time being, and he is required to make this declaration:
I declare that these particulars are correctly stated and that during the period covered by the application

(a) I was the registered owner of the ship above mentioned;
(b) National Maritime Board wages were paid to all officers and crew;…"
We have had a case of inadvertence in regard to that, to which I have already referred. It goes on:
…(c) All members of the crew were British subjects …
which includes Lascars, Chinese born in Hong Kong, and Kroo boys from West Africa—
…(d) The National Maritime Board agreement requiring the inclusion of three certified navigating officers, in addition to the master, in the crews of foreign-going vessels of 2,75o tons gross and upwards was complied with.
There is a footnote to the form, which says:
If a declaration cannot be made in the sense of (b), (c), and/or (d), the words should be struck out and an explanatory statement attached.
On 8th December last my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherhithe asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he would state

the number of vessels in respect of which subsidy has been paid during 1936 in which lascar or other coloured seamen formed the whole of the crew and part of the crew respectively.
The Parliamentary Secretary will no doubt remember his reply on that occasion. He said:
The information desired is not available in the records of the Tramp Shipping Subsidy Committee, since it is not relevant to their consideration of claims to inquire whether the crew on any particular voyage comprised or included coloured seamen.
He went on to say:
Owners must satisfy the committee that in the engagement of seamen they have complied with the committee's requirement regarding the employment of British crews."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th December, 1936; col. 1808, Vol. 318.]
Having regard to the form of the declaration to be signed by the shipowners, which I have read, and having regard to the footnote which I have also read, the inference to be drawn from the Parliamentary Secretary's reply on 8th December last is that all persons, whether white or coloured, employed as British citizens on a ship on a voyage which qualified for subsidy were paid according to the National Maritime Board Agreement. That is perfectly clear. If the coloured seamen were not paid in accordance with that agreement, that declaration could not be signed by a shipowner—at least, not honestly—and an explanation would be necessary. I have read the agreement which says that if an owner cannot answer (b), (c) and (d), he must attach an explanation, and that explanation would clearly go before the Tramp Shipping Subsidy Committee. Consequently, the information for which my hon. Friend asked a few weeks ago ought to be available and must be available in the offices of the Tramp Shipping Subsidy Committee, unless every British seaman employed on every ship which has got a subsidy was receiving the Maritime Board rate of wages.
I am going to say that as regards Lascars, as regards Chinese, and as regards Western African Kroo boys, those rates are not being paid. I am going to suggest—and I do not want to put it too high—that the President of the Board of Trade and the Parliamentary Secretary have not been very frank about this question. I am going to suggest that they have prevaricated. I am even going to suggest that they have misled this House


and the public. On 7th April last year my hon. Friend the Member for Rother-In-the—I hope he will not mind my, quoting him so often to-night—asked a question of the President of the Board of Trade about the crew of the steamship "Kelvinbank." That was a steamship owned by a, company that received nearly £77,000 of subsidy in 1935,, a company which employed a very large number of lascars and Chinese. In reply, the President of the Board of Trade said that the lascars were serving on a lascar agreement opened at Calcutta, and that subsidy had been paid in respect of voyages carried out in 1935 by this vessel. My hon. Friend then put this question:
Is it the case that the agreement they are under contravenes the rates of the National Maritime Board?
The President of the Board of Trade replied:
I cannot say that until the agreement has been examined by the Committee.
My hon. Friend then drew attention to the fact that the National Maritime Board agreement contains a stipulation as to overtime, and the President of the Board of Trade replied:
The remaining members of the crew are employed on a lascar agreement and, as is customary, there are no stipulations regarding overtime in this agreement. I have drawn the attention of the Tramp Shipping Subsidy Committee to this matter.
My hon. Friend, who seemed to be irrepressible that afternoon, pressed the point further, and said:
If that is so the agreement"—
that is, the National Maritime Board agreement—
is not being observed by this company.
Then the President of the Board of Trade said, for the second time within two minutes:
I have already said that I have drawn the attention of the Committee to these facts"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th Ana 1936; cols. 2577–8, Vol. 310.]
Therefore, there can be no dubiety of meaning about the answer given by the President of the Board of Trade. My hon. Friend's enthusiasm waned for the moment, and he gave the President of the Board of Trade two months before he pressed the matter again. On 16th June he put this question to the President of the Board of Trade:
Whether ha has now, consulted the Tramp Shipping Administrative Committee as to the

validity of lascar agreements on ships in respect of which subsidy has been claimed; and, if so, with what result?
The President of the Board of Trade replied:
I am not aware of any reason for consulting the Committee on this subject.
Not aware of any reason for consulting the Committee on this subject, when on one day he had twice stated that he was bringing the matter before the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say:
But I may remind the hon. Member that lascar agreements are Indian Government agreements signed in India under the supervision of the Indian Government's representatives.
In view of that answer, which was a complete denial of what the right hon. Gentleman had said he would do two mouths before, my hon. Friend pursued the matter further by asking:
Has not the right hon. Gentleman given the House to understand that the Maritime Board's agreements are the agreements which have to be observed to qualify before the collection of the subsidy, and is he not now saying that he is extending these agreements to lascar agreements made in India, for which the Maritime Board have no responsibility at all.
The President of the Board of Trade replied:
The hon. Member is mistaken in imagining that the Maritime Board agreements apply in this case.

Mr. Benjamin Smith: Of subsidy.

Kr. Greenwood: Of subsidy. Then my hon. Friend said:
The point that I want to get is this: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that maritime rates are enforced for all British seamen employed as a condition of receiving the subsidy.
The right hon. Gentleman replied:
Exception for lesears, in this case as in all others with which I have dealt in answer to questions, the British Government agreements apply.
Then my hon. Friend, the Member for Seaham Harbour (Mr. Shinwell) said:
Is not that a complete evasion of the whole spirit of the regulations governing the shipping subsidy agreement.
The President of the Board of Trade replied:
Nothing of the kind. It is a repetition of what has been said many times before."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th, June, 1936; cols. 778–9, Vol. 313.]
Now I come to a further point. On 27th July, after the President of the


Board of Trade had put the responsibility on the Indian Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherhithe asked the Under-Secretary of State for India for details as to lascar agreements, and later was supplied with copies of the three agreements which are in operation, copies of which are now in our possession. He also asked who were the responsible authorities to make the arrangement as to the wages of lascar seamen. The Under-Secretary of State for India promised to supply the information, and my hon. Friend received a letter from the India Office, dated 11th December last, part of which I will read:
I also promised to find out for you what organisations representative of the lascars were consulted in connection with the drafting of these agreements. The answer to this is that the seamen's unions at Bombay and Calcutta were consulted generally about the drafting of the agreement form. As regards the arrangements as to wages, the agreements, including the term regarding wages, are made between the lascar seamen and the master of the ship.
That means that, in effect, these agreements are not agreements; they are terms determined by the master of the ship with the lascar as he signs on. That being the case, what is the position of certain cargo liner companies in this country who employ coloured seamen who, as we have been told from the benches opposite, are British seamen although their skin may be coloured? What is the position of those companies who have received subsidies when they have employed British seamen on conditions which do not fulfil the National Maritime Board's conditions? How do these companies complete the declaration form for the subsidy? How was it that they were given the subsidy? I am going to mention the names of some of the companies, cargo company liners some of them. I am not complaining about all of them; some of them are very good companies, but they have received out of public funds, subsidy, and they employed lascars but did not employ them under conditions which we think ought to be observed.
Let me give the figures for 1935. I am sorry that we have no information about 1936. I object very much to giving any subsidy for another year before we know how the last subsidy was spent. I do not think the Parliamentary Secretary ought to accuse my hon. Friend the Member for Seaham about talking of old

stuff. If he will provide us with new stuff we will talk about it. Meanwhile, I am bound to go back to 1935, because the 1936 figures are not available. The Clan Line received £17,000; the Bank Line nearly £77,000; T. and J. Brocklebank, £1,700; the Charente Steamship Company, £13,000; Elder Dempster and Company took a trifle of £1,200; H. Hogarth and Sons, £2,000; the Hogarth Shipping Company, £46,000; and the Ocean Steamship Company over £2,000. How in these circumstances were these firms entitled to subsidy? We have pressed this matter time after time on the notice of the President of the Board of Trade and the Parliamentary Secretary, but they have evaded the questions about lascars. My hon. Friend the Member for Rotherhithe has put a whole series of questions running for several months in order to probe this matter, and to-night we are entitled to a further answer.
Now I will carry the matter a little further. On 8th December last the Parliamentary Secretary made a statement in the House, of which I will remind him:
There has been so far no case in which the Tramp Shipping Subsidy Committee have found it necessary to withhold their recommendations for payment of subsidy solely on the ground that the applicable agreements of the National Maritime Board have not been observed in respect of rates of wages. Certain cases have come to the Committee's notice, where the rates paid on a particular voyage to individual members of the crew were less than is required by the agreement applicable.
No doubt, as in the case which I have quoted, they were inadvertently paid:
In these cases the Committee, before recommending payment of the subsidy for that voyage, have required owners to make the appropriate payments to the crew.
Can we infer from that statement that this action has been taken with regard to the British lascar seamen? I doubt it very much, and I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will give us a reply on that point. Now I come to a specific case which shows how this subsidy is working and how lascar seamen are being exploited, to the disadvantage of British seamen. Let me take the case of the steamship "Dumfries," which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherhithe. On 8th December last my hon. Friend asked whether the President of the Board of Trade would supply:
The number of white British seamen and the number of lascars, and their rates of


wages, now employed on the steamship "Dumfries," and the number of white British seamen and the number of lascars employed on this steamer on the 1st July, 1936."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th December, 1936; cols. 1807–8–9, Vol. 318.]
The reply which was given, and which I gather is in the mind of the Parliamentary Secretary, shows that on the voyage terminating at Avonmouth at the end of June last year that vessel was completely manned by British-born white seamen, and their rates of wages were in accordance with the National Maritime Board's conditions. The total wages on that voyage, which terminated in Avonmouth on 13th June last, including all the officers, but excluding the master, amounted to £293 per month. This same vessel sailed from Barry in South Wales on 19th November last, five months later, on a tramp voyage. The boat retained its British officers but discharged the whole of the ratings and appointed in their place lascars. It kept its officers, its wireless operator and its carpenter, but the whole of the rest of the crew where lascars. The number of British ratings on the boat when she docked at Avonmouth in June was 20.

Dr. Burgin: Twenty-nine.

Mr. Greenwood: Yes, I stand corrected. The number of lascars taken on was 49. I am glad that the Parliamentary Secretary and I are in agreement about something.

Dr. Burgin: In order that we may be in entire agreement, the 29 includes the first, second and third mate, the wireless operator and the carpenter.

Mr. Greenwood: I do not deny that; and 49 people took their place. In spite of the fact that the number of people on that ship was doubled the monthly wage figure, taking the rupee at 1s. 6d., was reduced by £45 per month. As a matter of fact, the officers had had an increase in their salaries, and if this is taken off, as it must be for the purpose of comparison, the wages paid were reduced for twice as many people by £63 per month. A British ship having had a British crew within a few months engages a lascar crew, more than double the crew, with a substantial saving to the company in wages. The matter was brought to the notice of the House by the hon. Member for Rotherhithe, and the figures with regard to saving were not disputed. My hon. Friend asked:

Whether the rates of pay given to the lascar seamen and firemen are in accord with the decisions of the National Maritime Board.
The reply was:
The National Maritime Board's decisions as to rates of wages do not apply to the lascar crew who were engaged in India on lascar agreements.
I want to follow the history of this business, as it is very important to our discussion. How was it that a lascar crew was available in Barry, in South Wales, of men who had been signed on under an agreement in India, to take over the steamship "Dumfries"? On inquiry it appears that these lascars were transferred to the "Dumfries" from another ship called the "Cromarty" belonging to the same owners, and in the shipping paper called "Fair Play," which is not always an exact description of the paper, on 17th December last there was an explanation why these lascars were available at Barry.
Readers who have studied the shipping sales recorded in these columns recently no doubt have noticed quite a number of transactions showing a considerable profit on the prices paid a few years ago. For instance, last week the sale was reported of the 'Cromarty' for £60,000, which compares with her sale in August, 1933, for £44,500.
I shall be interested to know whether, according to all principles of sound finance, the shipping company put aside the necessary amount for depreciation during those three years. In any event the sale or the resale of the vessel meant a handsome profit to the company, and then having sold the boat the lascar seamen were transferred to another ship of their own line which hitherto had been manned by a British crew. The owners of these vessels are Messrs. B. J. Sutherland and Company, Limited, Newcastle-on-Tyne, who have a fleet of half a dozen vessels, and they, in 1935, received a subsidy of nearly £19,000. But I have not finished with this case. Just before the Christmas Recess, on 17th December, the hon. Member for Rotherhithe asked:
Whether any application has been made for assistance under the British Shipping (Assistance) Act in respect of the voyage or voyages made by this vessel since the 19th, November, 5936.
That refers to the "Dumfries," and the: reply was:
The voyage of the 'Dumfries,' which began on the 19th November, is not yet complete, and an application for a subsidy could not therefore have been made."—


[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th December, 1936; col. 2635, Vol. 318.]
This particular voyage of the "Dumfries" was to the River Plate, and I am informed that all British vessels without exception on this route employ British crews at the National Maritime Board's rates of wages. This was an ordinary tramp voyage. What is happening is that this company now for the first time is employing lascar labour on a route where they have never sailed before and are damaging other lines of steamships who are honourably employing British seamen at British rates of wages. That is a story which, I submit, ought to be more fully investigated. It is a story which does not give hon. Members on this side any confidence in the way the subsidy is being administered.
The Parliamentary Secretary referred to what was said earlier in the week about this being a subsidy to profits and made a speech which would have wrung the heart of the Minister of Labour if he had been present. In many respects I agree with what he said, but what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. I am sorry that the Minister of Labour was not present to hear the Parliamentary Secretary give his very logical and powerful reason for the abolition of any means test. He said that these companies were all struggling with adversity and, poor dears, that they were all deserving of a little bit out of the public funds. If the Government would only co-ordinate their policy, let us understand what it is, we should know where we are, but it is perfectly clear that what is happening in the tramp shipping industry is that firms who have no need whatever for assistance are getting it. I see that the Minister of Labour, who is now present, shivers at the very thought. His basic principle is that public money should not be wasted on people who are not in need. He believes that you cannot squander public money on people who are not in need, but the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade tells us that it is perfectly all right and decent, it is honourable and desirable, that wealthy firms should be able to dip their fingers into the pockets of the public.
The hon. and gallant Member for Barkston Ash (Colonel Ropner) tried to defend the position on Monday night, and

is here to defend it again. With some courage he spoke frankly of his own position. He made, shall I say, the proud admission that he was responsible for two subsidised companies, both of them engaged in the tramp shipping trade, and, of course, he defended the subsidy. Although I am quoting only this particular case, I could if necessary quote others, but I would rather do it before au hon. and gallant Member who is present. I know that the hon. and gallant Member's arithmetic was such that he worked it out that he has had a profit of only I per cent. over a number of years, but it does not appear to me as though he is likely to become a person who will fall under the Minister of Labour and become amenable to the means test. I gather from "Fair Play" of 14th January that last year the hon. and gallant Member's two companies made a profit on voyages amounting to £15,000. I admit, of course, that the capital of the companies amounts to nearly £,000,000; but of the amount of the profit, over half was subsidy, for the hon. and gallant Member's companies received £17,000 in subsidy. I am not blaming him for accepting it; I am only blaming the Government for giving it to him. That sum represented a substantial proportion of the whole subsidy.
I think it is reasonable to say that if it is in the public interests that public money should be devoted to resuscitating an industry, it ought to be directed into channels which will ensure that the subsidy is used for the purpose of restoring the industry and not, as our Amendment says, of swelling private profits. The hon. and gallant Gentleman is not a poor man. I have found out what he put away for depreciation. Of course, he was very wise to put some money away for depreciation, but I am bound to say that this depreciation business rather mystifies me, as an ordinary, plain man. After making inquiries, I gather that the average age of the hon. and gallant Member's ships is 10 years. Depreciation of 5 per cent. is usually allowed on a life of 20 years. A good many ships have been well depreciated, are still going strong although they are over 20 years old, and have been well paid for. The hon. and gallant Member's companies, however, are putting away well over 5 per cent. each year, so that his profit is really a little larger than he tries to make it appear to us.
because he is putting money away for this mysterious process of depreciation. As has been said already from these benches, we do not like subsidies. We conceive that in certain circumstances subsidies may be desirable, but they ought not to be used to serve the ends of private profits.
I come now to the next point. The Parliamentary Secretary, in his speech on Monday, referred to the organisation of the industry. All that he means by the organisation of the industry is co-operation among the tramp shipowners to raise freight rates, and in that they have succeeded. The only kind of co-operation that has taken place has been co-operation to safeguard the owners against their own silly freight rates competition. Nothing more has been done. The hon. Gentleman asked me what was to be done about the reorganisation of the industry. I would like to quote a speech which was made in his presence in the Debate on Monday last by a shipowner. The hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. Maclay) has an honoured name in the shipping world; it is honoured on this side of the House as well as among shipowners. He is a very enlightened shipowner, and the conditions on his ships are a model which I wish other shipowners would copy. In his speech on Monday last, he dealt with the question of reorganisation. The hon. and gallant Member for Barkston Ash twitted me about nationalisation; in fact, he was rather chirpy about it and I am glad he was in that mood; but I will quote what was said by the hon. Member for Paisley, speaking as a shipowner of very considerable experience:
One of the good things about the subsidy has been that it has given the industry a lead towards organisation.
That was only organisation in the direction of "rooking" the consumers by raising freight rates. The hon. Member then went on to speak of the position in the shipping industry:
At the moment there are conflicting opinions in the industry. Some say, 'If the subsidy finishes, let us go on with organisation voluntarily'; others say, Let us have no schemes at all,' and there are those, a pretty strong section, who say, 'Let us have an enabling Bill passed through the Mouse of Commons, without any subsidy, which will force co-operation.' That is the present position among owners—a complete confusion of thought as to what is best for the future.
The hon. Member went on to suggest the lines that might be taken:

My last remark must be concerned with the necessity for organisation and co-operation. It was essential to stop what was becoming suicidal competition among British tramp owners. If we allow this organisation to be carried on, I hope on a voluntary basis, it will establish an organised industry ready to co-operate with the foreigner in some cases and in other cases to fight him. I am convinced that those industries of Britain which have to compete in international trade in future will not be able to do it as little, individual units. I do not say you will have to go to the full Socialist programme; I do not think you will, but industries will have to organise themselves so as to be able to cooperate with the Government."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st February, 1937; cols. 1364–5, Vol. 319.]
That is as much as I can expect from a Conservative shipowner, arid it is more than I should expect from His Majesty's Government; but there we have an admission by a responsible shipowner of experience and a Member of this House who, although he will not swallow the whole of the dreadful "Red" programme, is bound to face the fact that there has to be concentrated organisation of the industry. This subsidy has done nothing to promote that. All it has done has been to bring these people together with the object of raising freight rates. The subsidy has just drifted into the pockets of the shipowners. I told the House of the Elder-Dempster Line—£1,200. I imagined that the directors of that line would have regarded that sum as petty cash. The subsidy has just been dripping into the pockets of the shipowners without the country getting pound for pound in real national value. I compare that with the treatment which this Government has meted out to the seamen. We have pleaded with the Government on this question for over two years now, and the Government have not made a single concession to the seamen. At the International Labour Conference at Geneva, Conventions have been submitted affecting the lives of the seamen, and His Majesty's Government, on every occasion except one, have stood with the shipowners of this country.
My hon. Friend who spoke on the Money Resolution said that we were concerned about the mercantile marine. So we are. I believe that well-found British ships, manned by British officers and crews, carrying out their duties under conditions which are honourable to the service and to our people, would be a great national asset. This subsidy has


done nothing to promote that object. It has done nothing to promote that reorganisation of a part of our mercantile marine which is necessary both in peace and war. It has done nothing to deal with what is a matter of fundamental public interest. I should be the last to complain if public resources were being devoted solely to the public good. I should like to see the mercantile marine and the section of the trade which is particularly concerned in this Bill, enriched, improved, and strengthened as a result of the subsidy. But that has not been done. The failure of the Government during the time which they have had to reorganise the industry is, in itself, sufficient reason why we should vote against the Second Reading of the Bill. I have had experience for some years of the textile industry. Those engaged in it are stubbornly determined not to cooperate. The shipping industry too is highly individualistic, as the Parliamentary Secretary said, and those engaged in it are not to be relied upon to co-operate
voluntarily. Yet this great service is vital, and if His Majesty's Government would use this subsidy, as a means of raising the dignity and efficiency of the service, it would be worth while. But so long as it filters through into depreciation accounts and goes to swell profits, it is doing nothing either for the seamen or for the welfare of our people.

8.30 p.m.

Major Sir Herbert Cayzer: This Debate is primarily concerned with tramp shipping but, of necessity, one is bound to refer to shipping as a whole, because passenger liners, and cargo liners, as well as tramps, have qualified for the subsidy although, generally speaking, to a very small extent. In fact it is very hard to differentiate sometimes, in this matter between the liner and the tramp business. Liners have always carried a certain amount of tramp cargo. In certain seasons of the year, from certain parts of the world, they bring home cargoes of those commodities. They carry cargoes of tramp commodities from India, Australia and South Africa in the slack season and at the season when these commodities are moved liner companies frequently carry cargoes of rice, sugar and wheat. This is nothing new, and it is not cutting into the tramp business because it has always been part and parcel

of the shipping trade. Liners carry such cargoes not always for the whole of a voyage but often for half a voyage, say, when they are coming back from abroad to this country and that is how, to a large extent, cargo liners have qualified for the subsidy.
The hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) made a good many comments on various companies with regard to reorganisation when he spoke on Monday last, and I wish to answer him on one or two points. He said that the reserves of the 26 cargo liner companies amounted to more than £35,000,000. Some of those companies, he said, had qualified for subsidy, and he asked what was the good of pretending that they required financial assistance. The hon. Member was evidently unacquainted with the working of the Act and the conditions under which it was put into force. It was found very difficult to find a true definition of "tramp shipping" and after a great deal of time and thought had been given to the matter, it was decided that ships carrying whole cargoes of tramp commodities and fulfilling the conditions laid down should be entitled to the subsidy, irrespective of whether they were owned by passenger line companies, cargo liner companies, or tramp owners. It was necessary to have some definition and that was the best that could be found. The tramp voyages of liner companies which have become eligible for subsidy are only a very small fraction of the liner companies' business.
Only 10 out of the 26 liner companies referred to in "Fair Play" from which the hon. Member for Seaham quoted, received subsidy. The amount of that subsidy was £108,000, the bulk of which went to two companies, leaving only £14,000 for the other eight. Thus, the amount received by most of the companies was in the neighbourhood of £1,500 or something like that, which is a mere bagatelle for many of these big liner companies. One of the objects of the subsidy is to fight the competition of foreign ships which are being subsidised by foreign Governments, to alleviate the losses which the companies engaged in those fights incur, as a result of taking uneconomical rates so as to compete in the open market against those foreign subsidised ships. Many of these cargo liners have been doing that very thing. This subsidy is not profit, not


something for nothing, as some hon. Members opposite are inclined to think. It is paid in order to put British ships on fighting terms with foreign subsidised ships in the open market.
I have been asked to give particulars with regard to two or three cargo liner companies to which the hon. Member for Seaham referred the other day. I am not going to say anything about the remarks he made concerning tramps, because there are hon. Members who know more about it and are more closely in touch with that line of shipping than I am. The hon. Member complained about the Bank Line that they had received a subsidy and yet had made very large profits amounting to £338,000. I am told that these are the gross profits of that company before depreciation and are the returns from their lines, and tramps, and dividends on investments. The gross profit secured by their tramps was actually only £64,550. The depreciation in respect of the tramps amounted to £133,900, so that on the tramp side of their business they showed a net loss of £69,000. After giving credit for the subsidy of £76,000, the net profit from the tramp voyages amounted to £7,400. It is not a fact, as the hon. Member said, that they paid 3½ per cent. dividend because they say that no dividends were paid on the ordinary shares.
Then the hon. Member spoke about the Houlder Line. The information I have received is that this line operates four large refrigerator vessels for the carriage of chilled and frozen meat from the Argentine to this country. This case, therefore, has nothing to do with the question of tramp subsidies. It is merely, as they say, an accident that the company performed certain tramp voyages during 1936 which entitled them to a subsidy of £1,766. They say, in answer to further inquiries:
It is perhaps of special interest to note that the voyage trading in respect to which these subsidy payments were made resulted in an actual loss considerably in excess of subsidy received.
They further state with regard to the business of their company as a whole that their gross profits were £146,000, and not £137,000 as the hon. Member for Sea-ham stated. The actual trading profit after deducting repairs and maintenance charges amounted to £112,000, but when depreciation and other charges are deducted the net profit amounted to £29,000

only. The hon. Member also put some questions with regard to my own firm, the Clan Line. He stated that the Clan Line did not even comply with the conditions laid down when the previous subsidies were granted, and that it did not pay the maritime rates of pay. With regard to the first statement, I do not know to what he is referring. I take it that the Subsidies Committee are the sole judges of that, and not the hon. Member for Seaham, and as we were paid a subsidy, I presume that we complied with the conditions. All I can say with regard to his second statement is that, of course, the Clan Line pay the maritime rates of pay. In fact, they pay in excess of the rates.

Mr. Gibbins: Is it not a fact that the Clan Line carry lascar seamen? Are these paid maritime rates?

Sir H. Cayzer: I have spoken about that subject over and over again in this House, and I am prepared to do it on another occasion, but I intend to make the speech I have prepared. We have already heard a great deal about lascar seamen from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood), and I am not going to devote every speech I make to that subject. We do carry lascars and they are paid the recognised Government of India rates. If the conditions had not been fulfilled, the Clan Line would not have received the subsidy. The fourth report on Tramp Shipping, Command Paper 5363, pages 11 and 12, gives a statement which I will not quote again because the right hon. Member for Wakefield has already mentioned it. It shows that in no case has the maritime wage rule been broken. The subsidy which the Clan Line received was £17,600. I have made inquiries, and I have found that the profit on the voyages of their ships which earned the subsidy amounted to £19,600, less depreciation of £26,600, leaving a loss on the voyages of £7,000. As a matter of fact, we engage in a great many trades, and we have been fighting the American Government this year on the trade from New York to South Africa. It is only a small trade, but we have lost on it fighting foreign subsidised shipping over £50,000 this year. So that our losses in fighting foreign ships amount to far more than we have received.
As regards subsidies generally, I have stated frequently in the House that I am absolutely against them. In the debates we had two years ago I spoke against granting a subsidy. I would prefer a good many other methods of dealing with the shipping position, but the House in its wisdom thought proper to grant a subsidy to our tramp shipping. All the cargo liners backed up that demand because they realised that the tramps were going through a very difficult period and they were out to see that they got the help that they really needed. The hon. Member for Seaham said that there appeared to be no reorganisation in the Mercantile Marine, and he suggested that there was need for reorganisation and rationalisation, and an inquiry into the question of depreciation and replacement in the fleet. I question very much whether the hon. Member for Seaham has the slightest knowledge of what British shipping has done in these respects. Practically every trade throughout the world where British liner companies are carrying on business has been rationalised wherever possible, and by every possible means. Australia, India and South Africa have all been rationalised more than once. Further, we have actually been able to get foreigners to agree on rationalisation with us in some trades. It has taken months to get them into line, and in the Australian trade it took us years.
As regards reorganisation, judging from the speech of the hon. Member for Seaham he fails to understand or to appreciate the troubles from which British shipping is suffering, and or what has already been achieved in the way of combating those troubles. To get a true picture we have to go back to the War. That is when the trouble started. While foreign Governments have always helped their shipping in every way they can since the War, our Government, I am sorry to say, have done very little indeed, except the other day, when they gave this tramp shipping subsidy, in fact, they have gone the other way, and appear to have tried to weaken shipping. Hon. Members will recollect that during the War we had the Excess Profits Duty, and British shipping was the one industry which was excepted from claiming back losses under that legislation.

Mr. George Griffiths: What did the late Mr. Bonar Law say?

Sir H. Cayzer: He was not talking about shipping, but about capital appreciation. During the War the British merchant fleet was commandeered by the Government; not only the fleet, but the whole of the organisation. The ships were put on Blue Book rates, which were quite inadequate in the circumstances. [HON, MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I will tell hon. Members about it if they will listen. For ships which were lost they paid sums which were much less than was required to replace those ships, and the profits made under Blue Book rates were barely sufficient to pay for the normal depreciation of 5 per cent. What did the Government do when they took over the ships? At once they put up the rates which the shipowners had been charging by 200 to 300 per cent., and the result was that in the course of the War they made hundreds of millions out of shipping, none of which went back to shipping. Shipping was allowed to have Blue Book rates and nothing more. Owing to the enormous number of ships sunk by submarines it was necessary to replace a great number of ships, cargo liners especially. The Japanese, the Americans and the neutrals were trying to get into the trade which had been formerly British, and it was only by the cargo lines and the passenger lines furnishing sufficient ships to carry on those trades that we could keep out the foreigners. Tramp owners could and did sell a great many of their ships at the high prices ruling, and they were justified, it was quite right to do so. You sell when prices are high and buy when they are low. The liner companies had to build or buy at three to four times the prices at which they had obtained ships in pre-war times. A ship which one could have bought or built pre-war for £100,000 cost £300,000 to £400,000 at the end of the War; yet we had been cut down to pre-war profits under Blue Book rates.

Mr. N. Maclean: What became of the German ships taken over?

Sir H. Cayzer: The worst thing that we ever did was taking over those ships. It would have been better to have sunk them.

Mr. Maclean: You got them at cheap rates.

Sir H. Cayzer: No, they proved dear. Those of them which we had in our fleet we should have been glad to get rid of,


but no one wanted them. Then, in 1921, the slump came and prices fell below prewar. There was an enormous depreciation in the value of the ships which the cargo line and passenger lines had had to build as a result of the War losses. With the slump prices fell below pre-war 70 to 80 per cent., and it was quite impossible for any of those lines to write off depreciation out of profits. It could only be done by using up reserves and writing down capital.
How did the British lines face this heavy burden? The hon. Member for Seaham said that British shipping failed to reorganise. To show that they did not fail to reorganise, I propose to tell the House of the reorganisation which my own firm underwent, because I think it is probably typical of what was done by a great many other shipping companies. In common with other companies we were left with this war legacy of millions of depreciation to be written off as a result of having to replace boats we had lost in the War. We had about 30 to 40—I cannot remember the exact number—of ships sunk by submarines, and those had to be replaced, and, generally speaking, we had to pay three or four times more than the pre-war value for the new vessels. Then the slump came and reduced them straightaway to the pre-war level of values. How did we face up to that position? We went through a difficult time for years. No dividends were paid on the ordinary shares for eight years. The average dividend from 1920 to 1934 inclusive, that is for 15 years, was under 2 per cent. We had £2,225,000 of capital in ordinary shares of £10 each. They were written down to £1 each, one-tenth of their former value. The ordinary capital was thereby reduced to £222,500. There were £750,000 of cumulative second preference shares. £500,000 of those belonged to the managers, and we wiped those off. All the reserves were used up in meeting depreciation. In spite of all those efforts we had to raise £1,500,000 in debentures to try to keep ourselves solvent.
That was the position of the company 10 years ago. I do not think one could get very much more drastic reorganisation than that. These drastic steps were taken and this heavy voluntary sacrifice was made by the management, and as a result of it the depreciation, running into millions, was wiped out. The decks were

cleared of the wreckage which was the result of the War, though at a great sacrifice to our shareholders, who received no dividends for years. The result is that to-day we are able to pay dividends on a small capital as compared with the post-war capital, and we are starting to build up reserves again, though not nearly to the extent that I should like. We had no ships laid up throughout the depression. We have always tried to keep our ships running, although making losses, as I believe the loss incurred in running is less than the loss which follows the laying up of a ship, when depreciation is very rapid and high. That is what has been done in the way of reorganisation by the Clan Line, although the hon. Member for Seaham denies that there has been reorganisation of shipping.
I have quoted that one case because I know all the facts, but, as I say, I think it is typical of a great many other shipping undertakings—typical of the great majority of the liner owners and of many tramp owners. I hope the House will excuse this rather personal side, but owing to the constant misrepresentations which there have been—not in this Debate, but in previous years; and I admit that I have had some very handsome apologies for mistakes made—I have felt that it was only fair that I should try to give the House the true facts. I felt that the questions which had been put forward needed answering. The Amendment backs up the hon. Member's query about reorganisation, because it speaks of British shipping needing more efficient reorganisation. British ships are losing ground in the trade of the world, but I maintain that they are as efficient as, even more efficient than, foreign ships.
To prove my contention that we are losing ground—and I do not think there is any question that we are—I will compare figures for June, 1914, with those for June, 1936, which are the latest figures obtainable. In June, 1914, Great Britain had 17,000,000 gross tons of shipping—I am speaking of vessels of 2,000 tons and over, ocean going ships—which was 5o per cent. of the tonnage of the world. In June, 1936, that tonnage had been reduced to just over 15,000,000 tons, and it was only 29½ per cent. of the world tonnage. On the other hand, foreign countries had just over 16,000,000 gross tons in June, 1914, 48 per cent. of


the tonnage of the world. In June, 1936, they had more than doubled that figure; they had over 34,250,000 gross tons, giving a percentage of 66.8 of the gross tonnage of the world. In other words, whereas in 22 years Great Britain's gross tonnage had decreased by 12 per cent., the tonnage of foreign countries had increased by 112 per cent. You cannot get away from the fact that we are still losing ground.
As regards efficiency, in order to prove that I am going to take the three factors, age, speed and size, and to compare this country with foreign countries in those respects. Again I am taking vessels of 2,000 tons gross and over. Over 36.5 per cent. of the tonnage of this country was under 25 years old in June, 1936; foreign countries had about 25 per cent. As regards tonnage over 25 years old, only 5 per cent. of our total tonnage was of that age, whereas foreign countries had 14 per cent. Both as regards young ships and old ships, therefore, we are to the good—very much to the good—compared with foreign countries. As regards speed, ships under 12 knots comprised 52 per cent. of our tonnage, but 70 per cent. of the foreigners'; over 12 knots, we had 48 per cent., but it formed only 30 per cent. of the tonnage of foreign countries. In speed, therefore, we have them again. Size is not so material, but generally speaking, a large boat is more economical than a small one. In 1936, 6,000 tons gross was our figure, whereas that of the foreigner was only 5,000 tons. I think that hon. Members will agree that in age, speed and size British ships are infinitely more efficient than, and are superior to, foreign ships.
Why, then, are we losing ground, when we are more efficient? Purely and simply because foreign ships are subsidised to the extent of 130,000,000 a year. They get that uneconomic subsidy paid to them. After the War, when British ships were handed back to their owners, they were put back on their old services. They had been taken out of those services when they were commandeered. In most cases, those services had been built up by British owners, but when they went back, they found that the foreign, subsidised ships had taken possession and refused to quit. British liners were forced to fight their way back, and they have been fighting for those trades ever since. The

result is that, since 1921, the liner trade to and from foreign ports has lost heavily. In all seriousness, I say that British ships cannot continue indefinitely against that unfair and uneconomic competition of State-aided foreign ships. Some British companies have already succumbed, and others are in a very bad way. I am not going to recite all the instances. We have all heard about the Pacific trade, and I shall not go into that any further except to say that British liners are in a bad way. In the Japan trade, British liners have had to pack up and have now only a very small trade. On the New York-Plate lines, the losses are tremendous, and companies withdrew their services.
In the New York-India, New York-Australia and New York-South Africa trades, which were built up entirely by British lines and were entirely British-operated before the War, we now have only a share, and that share is decreasing every year. The losses of the three or four British lines running the New York-South Africa trade must amount to £150,000 or £200,000 this year alone. The South Africa-New York trade, which was an entirely British line, is now entirely in American hands. British shipping is being gradually and effectively driven out of the trade between Dominion and foreign ports. If that goes on, we shall have to confine ourselves entirely to Empire trade. The tramp subsidy of £2,000,000 has given a breather to tramps, and I, with other shipowners, welcome it, appreciating the fact that the Government gave it; but it is no cure against the evil from which we are suffering to-day, that is, foreign, subsidised ships. The foreign subsidies are not directed against tramps, but against the liner trade.
I was one of those who agreed to the tramp shipping subsidy. As a result of two years of that subsidy, has British shipping improved its position in the world? Have the foreign subsidies been diminished, and have foreign nations shown any desire to drop or reduce their subsidies? The answer is in every case "No." British shipping's share of the world trade is worse than ever. With all due deference to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, who said that the co-operation achieved during the last few years had enabled British owners to compete on equal terms with


foreign owners, may I point out, as was said by another hon. Member, that schemes of co-operation assist the foreign owners as much as British owners? That is actually true. As long as foreign subsidies exist on the present scale, British owners cannot compete on equal terms with foreigners. You cannot get away from that.
Hon. Members will say: "What is the cure?" That is not my job. I have made various suggestions in this House from time to time. A very easy way out, and one on which, I think, my right hon. Friend and the Parliamentary Secretary have made a start, is that of using our position as the biggest buyer in the world. In nearly every country we have an adverse balance of trade, except, perhaps, with France. We should have trade treaties, not little niggling treaties, but treaties which use our purchasing power thoroughly. I believe we could do a great deal in that way to help British ships and to give some reply to the subsidies given by foreign countries. After all, there is the Merchant Service. It may be said, "You waste money and you are not efficient. You are not re-organised." I have tried to show that we are a very important, if not the host important of all our Defence Services. Without our ships, without a certain number of small and big ships, this country has starvation staring her in the face in the event of war. While I appreciate the help which the Government have given to tramp shipping, and also support this Bill, which continues the subsidy for another year, I hope they will seriously consider the wider aspect of shipping policy, and will give British shipping as a whole fair play in the trade of the world.

9.5 p.m.

Mr. Muff: The hon. and gallant Member for South Portsmouth (Sir H. Cayzer), from his well prepared brief, has made no mean contribution to the Debate this evening. I am glad that he gave us that bit of ancient history when he complained that his fleet, the Clan Line, with other cargo fleets, was commandeered by the then President of the Board of Trade—

Sir H. Cayzer: I did not complain; I stated it as a fact.

Mr. Maclean: Why bring it up, then?

Mr. Muff: If the hon. and gallant Member will ask him, when he arrives from

the "Aquitania" in another 30 hours, the then President of the Board of Trade, who is now President of the Board of Trade once more, will tell him quite frankly that his fleet was commandeered, with other fleets, owing to a lack of patriotism on the part of those shipowners, who were asking for prohibitive rates. It was in defence of the nation, which was at that time in danger of being beaten to its knees, that the then President of the Board of Trade took drastic action for the protection of the British public. I am also glad that the hon. and gallant Member has frankly acknowledged that he is still continuing the policy of his firm, with which I have been conversant since 1922, at any rate, when the policy was to employ as far as possible cheap and docile labour. That policy is being continued. When it was suggested to the hon. and gallant Member that perhaps the standard rates of wages were not being paid, he said that they must be paid, because there is an omniscient body of men looking to see that fair play is being given, except when it is missed inadvertently.
We on this side of the House are not going to apologise for returning once more to the attack on this question. We are not going to apologise for our endeavour to see—again to use the slogan of the hon. and gallant Member for South Portsmouth—that fair play is given to British seamen. I have no brief on this matter; I acknowledge that I am a landlubber; but I also acknowledge with pride that I represent the third maritime port in Britain. I do not know what the Indian maritime rates are, but I am glad to see, from this very admirable report, that only 31,000 tons of tramp shipping are now lying idle, as against 300,000 tons a short time ago. I notice also another passage in which it is stated that there is a definite shortage of white seamen. I suggest that that shortage will continue as long as the Indian maritime rates exist to undercut British white seamen. The Parliamentary Secre-tary may smile—

Dr. Burgin: I do not think the report quite says that. What the report says is that there is a shortage of white seamen available, that is to say, that a vessel putting into certain ports in this country, and desiring to take on a white crew,


would not be able to find all the complement that she wanted. That is what the paragraph means.

Mr. Muff: I accept that, but I also know that there are boys growing up who would be tempted to go into this highly skilled profession if there were some security that they were going to have a square deal and fair play in their duties. We have this notorious case where white men are sacked and cheap and docile labour is commandeered or crimped, or at any rate taken on, so that there is a saving in wages. I think that in the case of the "Dumfries" there was a saving—

Dr. Burgin: I do not want to interrupt the hon. Member, but he will, of course, appreciate that the House so far has heard a portion of one side of that story, and that it would be unwise to draw conclusions from the facts which have already been given.

Mr. Muff: I am prepared to accept what my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) has put before the House, and, if necessary, to give a little emphasis to it, in order to allow the Parliamentary Secretary, when we have the privilege of hearing his reply, the opportunity of giving some refutation to the challenge. My point is that I would be prepared to pay the white rate of wages to the hon. and gallant Member's cheap and docile labour in order to encourage young men to go into this great profession. Then we should have less of the hon. and gallant Member's cheap and docile labour undercutting his competitors and driving some of them out of the market, as has been the policy of his firm as long as I have known it, that is to say, for the last 15 years.
One reason why we have brought forward our Amendment is that we object to the shovelling out of public money without adequate control. We know that we are bound as a palliative to have some form of subsidy, but we contend, and we want to emphasise, that there must be adequate supervision, not altogether directed by the hon. and gallant Member for South Portsmouth. I should like, if I may, to pay the Parliamentary Secretary the compliment of saying that we have suffered no loss of efficiency in the presentation of the case owing to the absence of the

President of the Board of Trade. I always thought that the Parliamentary Secretary's motto was Suaviter in modo, but to-day is has been Fortiter in re. When I was a youth, I looked upon the President of the Board of Trade as a Gamaliel so far as subsidies were concerned. He presented as a truth the statement that subsidies were vicious. If he had been here, I should have told him that he once stated that as an eternal truth, and that, notwithstanding the fact that even his Parliamenary Secretary may put up a splendid case to the contrary, it is an eternal truth, and therefore cannot be really controverted. So we do not like these subsidies. I would refer the Parliamentary Secretary to a speech made by the Government spokesman in another place on 15th November, when he said:
We will not wait to be approached by the Dominions or foreign countries in order to make agreements. We will take the initiative and we will make the approach.
I am wondering what steps the Department has taken to try to put an end to these vicious subsidies. I remember the Noble Lord's peroration. It was something like this—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Dennis Herbert): rose—

Mr. Muff: I will not quote the speech.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member had better not do so. He has been in order so far in referring to a statement made on behalf of the Government. A peroration is another matter.

Mr. Muff: The policy of the Government was that they would leave no stone unturned to try to find a solution of this difficulty. I am wondering if they have started digging up the stone, or whether it is hidden in some international morass which takes some digging up. I quite agree that there are difficulties. Enlightened shipowners acknowledge that they do not like the subsidy. They acknowledge, and the Parliamentary Secretary and Government also acknowledge, that it is but a palliative, a plaster upon an ulcer, and that what is wanted is a cure, and not simply the application of a palliative.
Another part of the Amendment refers to
the establishment of a higher standard of wages and conditions for sailors in recognition of their arduous calling.


Not being a seaman myself, I pay my tribute to the men of the Mercantile Marine. We ask the Government not to look upon them as mere Lazaruses, as it were, to receive the crumbs from the rich shipowners' table. The seamen of England are something more than that. We have been able to do something on this side by our reiteration of this, that there must be the abolition of such ships as the "Crescenta." We are pleading for the fo'castle, for a sense of greater security and a larger remuneration. If I ask the Parliamentary Secretary who had made this country great I am sure, with his great knowledge, he could give me an answer. He would perhaps say it was Queen Elizabeth. He might say it was the Duke of Marlborough. He might even say it was Sarah Jennings or her modern incarnation who sometimes sits in the corner seat, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill). I believe that the men who put this country on the map of the world were the seamen of England. We are not pleading for the opulent shipowners but for those who go down to the sea in ships, and we ask, to paraphrase the words of the hon. Baronet the Member for Portsmouth, that the white seamen of England shall have fair play.

9.21 p.m.

Sir Alan Anderson: We are debating for the second time in a week the question whether we shall assist by a subsidy one of our great trades which is absolutely vital to our security and prosperity. I shall not ask the House to listen to me on any points of detail. I take my cue from something that fell from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) who said, "We do not like subsidies but—." It is on that "but" that I wish to speak. I am sure the House will agree that when we debate the question of distress in the Special Areas we are united. We feel that we have one cause. It is to help to cure distress. We may take a different view as to the pressure that we can put upon the Government, but our objective is the same. In all these Debates I remember only one speech that seriously cut across that desire not to say anything offensive to people in trouble. We had one speech from a candid friend. I remember that we sat up all night after it. He felt it necessary to tell the people

in South Wales, with whom he sympathised, that in his opinion fresh industries were not likely to start in their narrow valleys. That was the one speech of a candid friend of the depressed areas.
How different when we come to this question of the mercantile marine, which is the next step in putting right the depressed areas. The mercantile marine is not geographically an area, but it is in the trading sense a very obvious area of great distress. If all the people who live by the mercantile marine, not merely the hon. and gallant Member for Barkston Ash (Colonel Ropner) and the hon. and gallant Member for South Portsmouth (Sir H. Cayzer), but seamen, stevedores, and shipbuilders, were all brought together in one district, it would be one of the most depressed in the whole of Great Britain. The causes of their depression cannot be separated from the causes of the depression of the other Special Areas. You cannot separate them. From motives of administrative convenience a geographical designation has been given to commercial distress. We know the Special Areas as geographical units, and because we have not that geographical concentration the mercantile marine has escaped a great deal of the sympathy which I ask the House now to accord to it.
We are endeavouring in this Bill, which I hope will pass to-night, to make one step forward in curing the depression of a Special Area. And why not? Why are we suspicious? Why is the atmosphere different in debating this subject from what it was in debating the Special Areas? I think the answer is obvious. Hon. Members say that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander and why not a means test? Next, they do not like to pay subsidies to provide dividends. They say also, "We do not think that this cure will work." I will not go into these points in detail, but I ask hon. Members to put away criticism and to approach these difficult questions in the friendly spirit in which they approach the Special Areas. With regard to a means test. We shall in the near future, I hope, consider means of putting right the depression in the Special Areas. There will be enterprising people who will come forward and who will be willing to revive industry and promote prosperity.
What are we going to say to these people? Are we going to say, "If you


have a bank balance and reserves you shall not be permitted to undertake business here"? Certainly not. The more power they have, the more commercial genius they show and the better they can conserve their resources, the more likely they are to help in building up the prosperity of those areas. So it is with shipping. This is no passive operation. Shipowners are not asked to receive. They are asked to undertake a difficult operation, and to my mind there is no question at all that if we proceed on this line of subsidy it is absolutely essential for us to allow the people who have reserves, who have proved themselves fitted to conduct this industry at a profit, to serve us in bringing back business, which we all want.
Then there is the objection about the subsidy going to pay dividends. On the average of the whole of these companies the profit from voyages has been, over six years, only one-sixth of what is required for depreciation. The right hon. Member for Wakefield pretended that this word "depreciation" was a bit of a mystery to him. I have such respect for the intelligence of the right hon. Member that I am not entirely deceived by that statement. But may I say that this depreciation is simply the estimate of the amount by which plant and so on loses in value every year? If you start with an article worth £100 and it is going to be worth nothing at the end of 10 years the depreciation is said to be £10 a year, and if you fail to make £10 you have not made a profit. If at the end of five years you sell the article for more than half its original cost you have made a capital profit. Depreciation has to be dealt with in that rough-and-ready way, but taking one ship or business with another it pans out fairly accurately. When you find that the profit of an industry falls so enormously short of depreciation as to produce only one-sixth of the estimated loss of value every year, you may be perfectly certain that there is no profit being made out of that industry.
I should interpose here, perhaps, that although I am a shipowner I am not a tramp shipowner and am not sharing in the subsidy. I am not claiming any special, virtue because of that, but I am not in that trade. I submit that no hon. Member need feel his suspicions aroused

about the necessity of a subsidy because certain shipowners who have shared in the subsidy have paid dividends to their shareholders. It was not, on an average of the probabilities, from their tramp ships that these dividends arose. If anyone doubts that let him look at the speech of the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) last Monday, and they will find that he takes instances one after another of companies which are notoriously engaged in the liner business, which is right outside this, and whose share in this tramp business is a comparatively small item. The Clan Line was one. The Houlder Line was another. They have this outside business.
There is just one final point—that this is not a cure. No one believed that it was. The shipowners had debated this for several years. There was great opposition to asking for a subsidy, great opposition to supporting the tramp ship owners' claim for a subsidy. We could not think of any other way of helping. We felt perfectly certain that to apply something like a tariff, shutting out the other ships of the world, would be far worse, far more costly to all of us. A subsidy seemed to be the only way, and we were convinced that the tramps were a really bad case and that their claim for national support must be heard. But it is only a patch. It is the bandage. The cure is to restore the trade of the world, stabilise the currency of the world, and restore peace. These are the cures for all our evils. Let us hope that with the help of the United States and France we shall march forward faster than we have done. I think that we have made great progress lately; let us hope that we shall go on. But even if this is only a patch, when your patient is bleeding to death you are not shy of putting on a tourniquet and stopping the bleeding, although you know that that will not cure him. This subsidy will probably not be used. The tramp ship owners hope that it will not. If it is not, it will mean a return to prosperity which will spread out to South Wales, the North East of Britain and Glasgow, and show that we are coming back to better times. We all hope that they will arrive soon.

9.35 p.m.

Mr. Maclean: The hon. Member for the City of London (Sir A. Anderson) told us that this is only something to patch up


what is at present an evil, and he suggested that to-night we should vote to continue this subsidy in order to keep the patch on the particular evil from which the tramp shipping industry is suffering. That is all very nice, and I am certain that the House appreciates the nice, quiet and homely manner in which the hon. Member put his case. But we object to the subsidy, and one of the grounds of our objection is that, while you apply the patch to the tramp shipping industry, you do not inquire into the needs of those to whom you are giving the subsidy. When you come to look at the evil which exists in society which the hon. Member also mentioned—the depression in the depressed areas, in the South Wales valleys, the coalfields, and the ship-owning centres, and in various other parts of the country—and apply a patch upon the evil that the system has generated in those parts, you apply a means test to the individuals to whom you grant assistance. One of the objections we have to the payment of the subsidy to the tramp ship owners is that there is actually no distinction made as to the necessity.
While it may all be very well and good to say that over the whole area there is a certain amount of distress you apply the means test to individual cases, but in the tramp shipping industry companies which are not in actual dire distress, such as was made out when the subsidy was first passed, are now obtaining a share of the subsidy. They are companies which, in the main, do not require any portion of the subsidy at all. Our objection is to the lack of discrimination in the application of the subsidy to those who make application for it and to the manner in which the Board of Trade evidently screens breaches of the conditions laid down in the Financial Memorandum. The Board of Trade is the guardian of this subsidy, and, as a result of the committees that have been set up, has to satisfy itself that certain conditions are being met by the shipowners who desire the subsidy. The papers read by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) to-night, in spite of the suavity of the Parliamentary Secretary, show, without distinction, that either the Board of Trade is not paying sufficient interest to the application of the subsidy and the method by which the conditions are being fulfilled, or that there are some

incompetent persons who are not supplying the President of the Board of Trade and the Parliamentary Secretary with the whole of the facts.

Dr. Burgin: Will the hon. Gentleman be perfectly precise and say to what he is referring?

Mr. Maclean: Certainly, I will. This is the fourth report of the Tramp Shiping Administrative Committee. It was presented by the President of the Board of Trade to the House of Commons, and at the foot of page II where it lays down the conditions for the payment of the subsidy, the Parliamentary Secretary will see these words:
Strict compliance with National Maritime Board wages agreements has been required by the Tramp Shipping Subsidy Committee. It is satisfactory to recall the following statement by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade made in Parliament on 8th December, 1936:
'There has been so far no case in which the Tramp Shipping Subsidy Committee have found it necessary to withhold their recommendation for payment of subsidy solely on the ground that the applicable agreements of the National Maritime Board have not been observed in respect of rates of wages. Certain cases have come to the Committee's notice, where the rates paid on a particular voyage to individual members of the crew were less than is required by the agreement applicable. In these cases the Committee, before recommending payment of subsidy for that voyage, have required owners to make the appropriate payments to the crew.

Dr. Burgin: Hear, hear.

Mr. Maclean: I am very pleased to hear the hon. Gentleman say, "Hear, hear." The National Maritime Board conditions have to be applied and must be fulfilled in order to justify the Committee recommending the particular owner of a ship to receive a share of the subsidy. That case was quoted. The Parliamentary Secretary shakes his head. He sat and listened to the cases we quoted, and whether he agrees with them or not is beside the question at the moment. They were submitted to the House.

Dr. Burgin: One case, with which I shall deal, was submitted to the House.

Mr. Maclean: There were several cases—I have copies of them here. Evasive and contradictory replies were given to those cases by the hon. Gentleman's chief, the President of the Board of Trade. These cases were read out in the House,


and yet the Parliamentary Secretary says there was only one case. I think that I know the case to which he refers. The case was that of the "Dumfries," which, I take it, is still under consideration.

Dr. Burgin: No, I was referring to the case of the "Baron Inchcape," which was the only case I heard, and to which I listened attentively, which dealt with the Maritime Board's wages. The "Dumfries" deals with the lascars.

Mr. Maclean: Is it not the case that the President of the Board of Trade himself when asked whether the Maritime Board agreement contains stipulations as to overtime, stated that he had drawn the attention of the Tramp Shipping Subsidy Committee to the matter, and on another occasion that he was not aware of any reason—[Interruption]. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade challenged a certain statement I made, and I am replying, if he will do me the courtesy of listening.

Dr. Burgin: I am listening attentively.

Mr. Maclean: The hon. Member may have some method of hearing that other Members of the House do not possess, but it is difficult for any one to sit and listen to another while a Member is pouring something into his ears. The President of the Board, after making a promise to have the matter attended to, and having stated that he had drawn the attention of the Board to it, in one of his replies, went on to say that he was not aware of any reason for consulting the Committee on this subject. I remember that it was said that lascar agreements are Indian Government agreements signed in India under the supervision of Indian Government representatives. Other cases submitted by the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) on Monday dealt with practically the same cases of breaches by the employment of lascars, and the Parliamentary Secretary says he has only heard of one case. We will send him a copy of the document which I have here, if he desires it, and he will find that it is composed mainly of questions to himself and the President and of their replies to those questions. That, at last, should convince him, if my words do not, that there are more cases than the one to which he has referred.
The conditions laid down are National Maritime Board rates, and it is going behind those conditions for the President of the Board of Trade or the Parliamentary Secretary to say that Indian Government agreements entered into by lascars can qualify a tramp shipowner who employs those lascars to receive a share of the subsidy. That is our point on these issues, and the Parliamentary Secretary cannot shake off his responsibility merely by shaking his head. The hon. Member for South Portsmouth (Sir H. Cayzer) defended the Clan Line, and one must appreciate that where one is interested he has a right to stand up for the particular company affected, if he thinks it is being conducted on proper lines. None of us on this side object in the least to the statements made by the hon. Member, and we accept them, but he must remember that he does not go into the whole story of the condition of the shipping companies of this country; he must remember what was said by an hon. Member behind him, that regulation was necessary, because of the anti-social conduct of the shipowners and their unpatriotic attitude during the War; and he must also remember that after the War many of the shipowners who had been placing orders for the building of new ships to replace ships sunk during the War cancelled those orders, because they were buying German shipping very much cheaper per ton, at about half the price that they were required to pay for new shipping built in the shipyards in our own country.
One of the Government conditions was that the ships bought should be reconditioned to suit the trade in which the shipowner was engaged, and it is all very well to tell us that the shipowners have been very harshly dealt with and have been suffering from world conditions. When the hon. Member for South Portsmouth tells us that the chief evil that they have to face to-day is competition from shipowning firms of other countries who are able to compete against British companies because of the subsidies paid by those foreign countries, does he wish the House to accept as a theory or a principle that we, in this House, must vote larger and still larger subsidies to the shipowners of this country, in order to enable them to face the competition of the subsidised foreign shipowners? That is the logical outcome


of the argument and the reasons put forward by the hon. Member, and I submit that when an industry comes to this House asking for the continuation of a subsidy, we should have all particulars and information before us. We have not yet got that information, and we do not yet know how the subsidy has been apportioned among the shipowners during the past year. The most recent information that we have is for the year 1935, and I fail to see why there should be such an indecent haste on the part of the Board of Trade to rush this Subsidy Bill through in the early part of 1937 before they have given us their report for the year 1936, to let us know exactly how the money has been apportioned and which companies have got it and to enable us to analyse the expenditure that has taken place in the apportionment of that £2,000,000 subsidy.
The Financial Resolution also lays it down about the National Maritime Board rates, and I insist upon the point that lascars whose rates of pay are conditioned under some Government of India agreement are not under the National Maritime Board rates. Those rates are rates agreed upon by the Board of Trade. It was never believed by this House, when it passed the Financial Resolution and agreed to the conditions of the subsidy in the first place, that we were going to have other instances, other agreements, brought in to enable shipowners to qualify for these subsidies. I trust that the Board of Trade will go into this matter more fully than they have done in the past and will endeavour to get a straight policy and not bring before the House so many contradictory statements as to what is and what is not being done. I, therefore, hope that when the President of the Board of Trade does return, there will be consultation between him and the Parliamentary Secretary and their officials to arrange for a definite, clean, straight line of policy, which will be the acceptance throughout of the National Maritime Board rates, and that no deviation therefrom will be allowed by any tramp ship owner.

9.54 p.m.

Sir Charles Barrie: I am sure that those who have taken part in this Debate will be grateful to the hon. Member for the City of London (Sir A. Anderson) for his endeavour to bring the Debate back on to what I would call a proper platform.
Unfortunately, on both sides of the House possibly, although perhaps naturally on one side more than on the other, there have been recriminations directed against certain owners of vessels who, fortunately or unfortunately, are in the position of being in this House and of having to defend themselves against attacks. We are at present discussing a Bill to help protect one of the greatest industries in the country, and I was glad to note, from the terms of the Amendment which has been moved by the party opposite, that they do admit the importance to the State of the Mercantile Marine and are prepared to grant it proper assistance. This is a business proposition and one would like it, if possible, taken out of the realm of politics, but where State funds are necessary for an industry obviously the question must come here. The business proposition which I suggest to the House is simply this, so far as this country is concerned: Do we wish to have a Mercantile Marine adequate for our needs or do we not? I think we all admit that an adequate Mercantile Marine is necessary. Therefore, I had hoped that the general trend of the Debate might have assumed a different aspect, more on the lines adumbrated by the hon. Member for the City of London.
There are no doubt many difficulties and inequalities. I sympathise very much with what the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean) said about wages. There, I think, he was perfectly correct. In a great many cases the question of wages ought to be more closely looked into. Lascar seamen are very useful on certain vessels. The use of lascars in vessels running to the East really began in the early days when ships were not so well ventilated as now and it was found necessary in those very hot climates to use lascar seamen. No doubt in some cases it is necessary now that they should be used, but there are many cases where lascar seamen are used and where white seamen might be used. I know that there is some measure of profit as far as the owner is concerned, but in certain cases white seamen might be substituted.
Whatever the difficulties may be, and there are many difficulties, I come back to the question whether Britain wants a mercantile marine, ample, efficient and necessary for its needs. The House is in full agreement with me that that is


so. The next thing we have to do is to find out the best means of attaining that desirable object. The tramp shipping subsidy has been in operation for two years. On principle I do not like subsidies, least of all for ships. Might I add that, like the hon. Member for the City of London, although I am a shipowner I do not touch one penny of the subsidy. My vessels do not get the subsidy. Therefore, to that extent I am better able to speak for those who have been in difficulties and for whom assistance is required. It has been amply proved that the tramp shipping subsidy has enabled the tramp shipping industry to keep on its feet. The position of British shipping as compared with the total amount of world tonnage is very small. From owning a very large proportion of the tonnage of the world we have sunk considerably. If the war had to come it was a good thing so far as our position in shipping was concerned that it came in 1914 and not to-day, otherwise we should not have had the vessels necessary to supply our needs. In 1914 I think we owned in this country 8,587 vessels and to-day we own only 6,891—vessels of all kinds. It is probably better to give the number of ships rather than the tonnage, because those who are not conversant with the shipping industry understand better what is meant when one gives the number of vessels rather than the tonnage.
I do not wish to take up unnecessarily the time of the House, but there is one aspect of the shipping industry to which I would refer, and that is in connection with shipbuilding. From reports which one has seen in the Press one would imagine that shipbuilding is now in a prosperous condition. That is far from being the case. At the present time 55 to 60 per cent. of the slips in the country are occupied, and if war were to break out to-morrow, which please God it may not, and more ships were required, there are not the facilities for turning out an adequate number of vessels. That statement applies not only to the slips but, unfortunately, to the men who build the vessels, of which there are too few at the present time. Although there are fewer facilities for building we have improved the methods of building by 3o per cent. and therefore that has compensated for the number of slips scrapped by the

shipbuilders, but there are not sufficient facilities for turning out the number of vessels that we might require were we to suddenly find ourselves in need. In that and other ways the result is that vessels are dearer and shipowners who must use the depreciation funds which they set aside for shipbuilding, will use a very large proportion of the subsidy now earned in that way.
There is no business in the country which spreads its web through a greater variety of industries than shipbuilding. I have some figures, which I was fortunate to come across the other day, in connection with the amount of steel required for the building of the "Queen Mary." The "Queen Mary" required 50,000 tons of steel for her building, and 125,000 tons of coal were required for the manufacture of that steel. If one carries on that calculation throughout the shipbuilding industry one finds that this subsidy will do very much to help not only the tramp shipping and the shipbuilding industries, but the assistance filters through a large number of other trades. A battleship draws its requirements from 60 towns in Great Britain, ranging from Aberdeen to Southampton. Therefore, while we are discussing in narrow terms the question of the subsidy for tramp shipping, we ought to bear in mind that a very much larger question is concerned than simply the fact that a certain amount of money goes into the pockets of individual shipowners.
The hon. Member for the City of London referred to the fact that it is not the large shipowners who have benefited by the subsidy but the small shipowners. It has enabled them to keep their fleets at sea, otherwise they would have been laid up. I would ask the House to consider this question not from the narrow point of view as to the giving of the subsidy, but from the point of view of the great national question of assistance to a most vulnerable industry and a most necessary one to us at all times, an industry which gives employment to a large number of men, and is giving employment to a larger number of men because of the subsidy. At one time there were 309,000 tons of shipping, representing 126 vessels, laid up in this industry, but there are now only ten. It has also been stated that there are no white sailors now unemployed, whereas at one time there were 60,000 men walking the streets, a thing


which the shipowners and the country as a whole must have deplored. Shipbuilding has been helped by the giving of the subsidy and as a result many other industries have benefited. I hope that the House will look at this matter not from the narrow point of view, but from the general point of view of assistance to one of the greatest industries in the country, and a most vulnerable and highly necessary one.

10.5 p.m.

Mr. Gibbins: Those who represent shipping ports are naturally interested in the question of improving the shipping industry, and we are anxious to look at the matter in as broad a way as possible. To hon. Members on this side of the House industry means the men who carry on the work of the industry. To us the most substantial part of an industry are the thousands of men who have to earn their living by it. In this case we are interested in the thousands of men who earn their living on the sea. It would appear from some parts of the speech of the hon. Member for Southampton (Sir C. Barrie) that the industry was in a good condition, but the hon. and gallant Member for South Portsmouth (Sir H. Cayzer) talked as though it was on its last legs, that we were beaten all over the world and that nothing we could do, even this subsidy, would be of any benefit to the industry. But if we are going to give £2,000,000 of public money to the industry this House should have greater control on the expenditure and an assurance that the money is going to the firms which really need it. That is perfectly fair. If you lump all the tramp companies together, irrespective of any loss or gain they are making, and give them public money, you may find yourself giving large amounts of money to people who without the subsidy would be able to carry on fairly well, and this amount might very well have gone to increase the efficiency and usefulness of the badly hit firms. If you follow the argument of the hon. Member for South Portsmouth to its logical conclusion it would not be £2,000,000 but many more million pounds if it is going to do anything really good.
It is a rather sad confession that this great industry has to come and ask for £2,000,000 to keep going at all. If the excuse is that we have to compete with

companies which are subsidised by foreign Governments from national funds, countries like Russia and Fascist countries, then sooner or later we shall have to face the question of bringing shipping more and more under Government control. The hon. Member for South Portsmouth referred to the carrying of lascar seamen. I listened carefully to the Parliamentary Secretary in his endeavour to get over the question of maritime rates of pay. He has said that the agreement allows the committee in lieu of the maritime agreement to take the agreement made by the Indian Government, although the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) has pointed out that these agreements are not made by the Indian Government, but between the captain of the ship and the seamen. We on this side of the House cannot see how it is possible to excuse the payment of half wages to lascar seamen because of some agreement signed in India. I have some little experience of sea life, and I have come to the conclusion that there are sailing in British ships not only lascars but Chinese as well. They are almost in slavery. When they are in this country they have no home, they are banded together, and generally controlled by bullies.
It is a pitiable sight to have to sail in ships with these poor creatures, who have neither soul nor will of their own. In Liverpool we have had many cases where they have absconded from their ships and become chargeable to the Poor Law authorities. I appreciate the statement that they are used on certain routes. I have sailed with British seamen and firemen in all parts of the world, and there is no part where British seamen and firemen cannot work equally well as, if not better than, any lascar or Chinese. That is not the reason why they are employed. They are employed because of their cheapness, because they can be bullied and driven into doing things which white seamen will not do. There are 60,000 British seamen walking the streets, and thousands who have been out of work for years. What are these men to do? Most of them are compelled to go to the public assistance authority. They are not fit to go on firing after years of unemployment. It is the hardest job I know in the world. These men were out of work long before the subsidy came along, because


lascar and coloured seamen were employed. One would have thought that the hon. Member for South Portsmouth was performing a great patriotic duty in keeping his shipping company going by employing lascar seamen. It is nothing of the kind.
The reason for the present condition of the industry is its mismanagement and the scanty respect that is paid to a very fine body of men. I have never been able to understand why shipping companies flying the Union Jack displace their own countrymen in favour of naturalised Chinese or lascars. In the case of Liverpool it has meant that our rates have gone up by thousands of pounds. I say that shipowners have failed. It is no good talking about their great organising capacity, and, indeed, if we listen to the hon. Member for South Portsmouth the industry will need more than £2,000,000. The time is coming when the industry must stand on its own foundations or else there must be a different system of ownership and some definite control by this House. As a matter of fact, all the industries of the country are becoming pauperised. It seems that they cannot live without some assistance to carry them on.
We say that the shipowners have not been able to do their job, and that some change of system must be brought about. We say that the most important factor, which comes even before profits, is the livelihood of the workers. To-day the sailors get only 30s. a week. Can any hon. Member opposite imagine what it means to have only 30s. a week with which to keep a wife, six children and pay the rent? Do they hope to keep an industry going in that way? These poor fellows cannot get out of the rut in which they have got; they have to go to sea, and the only alternative is the public assistance committee. Many a time, as a member of a public assistance committee, I have been compelled to subsidise the wages, because they have been 10s. or 12S. below the parish scale. When the husband has been at sea, we have had to make the 30s. up to 42s. We have had to subsidise the shipowners in that way in order to help them to keep their business going. The first claim on the industry ought to be the men.
There is one other point to which I would like to refer, and it is the accommodation of the men. I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to go to sea in some of these tramp steamers. The men sometimes have to sleep about 20 or 30 together, with the water coming through the deck. I do not know what Hell is like, but I think the stokehold of a ship must be something like it. We have to look at this problem as a human problem and not one of profits. It is a great industry which deserves to be kept going, and nobody deserves better treatment than the men who keep it going to-day. No braver men ever went to sea. None of them funked or refused to sign on when they were needed in the submarines. They must have better accommodation and better wages for the work they do. The shipowners, when receiving this subsidy, should at least do something to improve the conditions in which these men have to work and live. They have to be at sea seven days a week; they cannot get home on Saturday nights and buy the "Football Echo" or the "News of the World" on Sunday. The shipowners should be more generous, and until the men are more adequately treated they should be content with the minimum of profit—nay, perhaps take no profit at all, until the workmen have been provided for adequately.

10.18 p.m.

Rear-Admiral Beamish: I have only a few remarks to make, and in making them I ask for the indulgence of hon. Members, for it is some sessions since I had the honour of speaking in this House. I would like, first of all, to say that the terms of the Motion on the Paper are of a very worthy nature. To my mind, the Motion shows that we are very much of one mind in regard to the essential necessity for a prosperous mercantile marine. In my opinion, the whole question resolves itself into a part of the Co-ordination of Defence. The Defence of this country is inseparably wrapped up with the maintenance of a tramp shipping industry. During the last War we had the most unparalleled losses that have ever stricken any industry. Something like 8,000,000 tons of shipping out of 20,000,000 tons were destroyed by enemy action. Since that happened—and it may happen again—we have to remember that the weapons of offence in the air and


under the sea have become more dangerous than they were during the last War. Therefore, if we should get into similar trouble in the future, we shall find that the menace to our shipping will be even worse than it was on the last occasion.
So many people have made the point already that I am only dotting the i's and crossing the t's when I remind the House of the tremendous necessity which exists for encouraging this industry by every possible means, and not allowing ourselves to be diverted from our efforts in that direction because there are faults, and, to my mind, serious faults in the running of the industry. The hon. Member who spoke last referred to the conditions under which the men in the industry have to work. I know something of those conditions. They are better now than they were formerly, but they are still in many ways disgraceful. Indeed, it is not possible to use strong enough language to describe the conditions almost of squalor under which the merchant seamen gallantly pursues his employment.
The fact that the industry lacks organisation and that the terms of service and the conditions of the men are not what they should be, ought not to deter us from providing this comparatively small and well-controlled subsidy for improving the efficiency of the service. If we were to seek unduly to control the subsidy now, the effect would be, at once, to undermine the confidence of shipowners and we should once more find this great industry sinking into apathy and decay. That is the very last thing we desire to see. As long as we remain an industrial highly-organised, populous country, very vulnerable to attack and becoming more and more vulnerable as time goes on, it behoves us to maintain a prosperous tramp shipping industry. It is an essential of our national life and the House ought to be unanimous in deciding that this subsidy is a vital necessity from a national standpoint.

10.23 p.m.

Mr. James Griffiths: I cannot claim to speak with any authority on the subject, but I intervene because of two observations which I heard in the course of this very interesting Debate. I am sure the House was deeply moved, by the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for West Toxteth (Mr. Gibbins), who understands

the industry and knows the human side of the question. Hon. Members opposite, I am sure, will not have grudged my hon. Friend the opportunity of placing before the House of Commons the human side of the picture. The first observation which tempted me to intervene came from the Parliamentary Secretary, to whom we listen with pleasure because he always knows his subject, and even when he has a bad case makes the best of it. The hon. Gentleman criticised our reasoned Amendment because it expresses the view that none of this subsidy should flow into the profits of the shipping companies. He said it was unreasonable to argue that the subsidy should not be paid if some of it became profit. In other words the hon. Gentleman argued that this dole from the State—because that is what it is—would lose a great deal of its value if a need test were applied in connection with it. If you apply a need test, if you deny this assistance to the shipowner who is making a profit, then it appears you defeat the object of the subsidy.
May, I ask the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues, will they please apply that principle to unemployed workers as well as to unemployed shipowners? I know of cases, and so do my hon. Friends, in which next week there will be a tiny change in the family circumstances in certain homes. A father who has been unemployed may get a job and be able to bring a few more shillings into the house, or a son may be in a, position to bring in a few more coppers. Because the, family passes that line between poverty and a bit of profit, the needs test is applied and, the subsidy is taken from the unemployed man. If the Government use the needs test fop the human wreckage of our industrial system, we are entitled to ask them to apply to, the others.
The second observation to which I want to refer was made in the interesting, quiet, well-reasoned speech of the hon. Member for the City of London (Sir. A. Anderson). He brought us back to the realities of this position. Why are we discussing tramp shipping? Because it is in distress. Why do we discuss South Wales and Durham? This Measure which we are discussing to-night is part of the picture of the problem of depression. Why is the shipping industry in distress? Because the trade of the world and the export trade of this country have met with disaster. Why are South Wales


and Durham and all the areas that are called Special Areas in a bad way? Is it not for the same reason that the shipping industry is, as the hon. Member described it, a specially stricken industry? Is it not because the trade of the world has been throttled by tariffs and all those restrictions that are put in the way of trade? Therefore, he made a sound observation when he said that the real problem is how we can free and increase and improve the trade of the world. I know that the tramp shipping of this country has to face government-subsidised competition of other countries, and that the coal trade on its export side has to meet subsidised competition. No one has the right to ask products like coal and services like shipping to go out into the world to meet such competition subsidised only by the poverty of miners and seamen of this country.
We can meet that competition only by treating our services and commodities as Germany and other countries treat theirs. But this way will end in disaster for all of them. These subsidies on tramp shipping and the export trade must end. As the hon. Member for the City of London has said, subsidies are a bandage which, for the moment, will stop the patient from bleeding to death, but it will not enable the patient to recover full health. The only way to do that is to free the trade of the world. I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us what the Government are doing in that direction. We cannot go on for ever paying subsidies. The Government cannot go on year after year coming to the House for this and that money in order to enable our trade to enter into this eternal competition with Germany and other countries. Are the Government taking any initiative in dealing with the main problem of freeing the trade of the world? We have joined the mad race; as a country we are as much under the influence of the fallacies of economic capitalism as any country in Europe. We have added our restrictions to the rest. We have joined in the mad race of trying to build walls around the country and throttle the trade of the world.
Recently there have been important pronouncements by chairmen of banks and by economists of note all of whom have warned the Government and the country that we allow our export trade

to decline and to die at our peril, that we are rapidly approaching the stage when this boom, this prosperity of which we hear so much, but which is confined to trade within our own boundaries, will pass away. The Parliamentary Secretary shakes his head, but he knows very well that every export trade in this country is declining, that all this boom is due to rearmament and the artificial increase in the home trade. There have been warnings, not from myself or others on this side, but from those who support the Government, that the time is rapidly approaching when this boom will reach its peak, and when it begins to go down we shall find ourselves in Queer street. I am urging the Government to take steps immediately to do what is required to meet that situation, and if they give subsidies not to use them as an end in themselves but as a means towards freeing trade and increasing the export trade. Only by a growth of the export trade can we bring recovery to areas like South Wales.
I want to see new industries coming to South Wales and to Durham, everybody wants it, but we know very well that that is a long-term policy, that it is going to take some time before we are able to absorb into industry all the unemployed men in South Wales and Durham. If we could take any measures at the same time to restore in some way the export trade on which those areas were built up that is something we ought to do. I have intervened to join with those who have said that if these subsidies are to be given to industry they should be given on the same terms as to the workers. If they are to be applied let them be applied not as an end in themselves, but as a means by which the Government can use its position to free the trade of the world and in that way bring some relief to the Special Areas and the industries which are suffering.

10.33 p.m.

Sir Henry Fildes: I wish to put a question to clarify my own mind on a statement made by the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood). I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to make it clear, with regard to the money voted in this House which reaches India, whether it is or is not a fact that there is an agreement with the owners of Indian ships which enables those ships to go to sea with men who draw less


wages than are stipulated for in the case of ships which sail from England. The statement has been definitely made, and I think the House would like to know whether that is the case or not, and I should be glad if the Parliamentary Secretary would make one of his usually clear and efficient statements on that point.

10.34 p.m.

Captain Peter Macdonald: I do not intend to enter into any of the abstract arguments used by Members of His Majesty's Opposition. I intend to confine myself entirely to the general principles underlying this Bill. Listening to the arguments put forward by Socialist speakers one would be led to the impression that the Government have only one object in introducing this Measure to continue the subsidy, and that was to put money into the hands of prosperous shipowners all of whom were friends of the Government, and that nothing was going to supplement wages, or to improve the employment and working conditions of the men engaged in the industry. The reason I support the Measure whole-heartedly is that it does fulfil all those objectives. It may be true, as has been said, that some shipping companies that did not deserve the subsidy have obtained it, but that is a question to be dealt with by the President of the Board of Trade, who knows the full facts. To use the argument that because a shipping company, or any other company, is prosperous, it should be excluded from subsidy, is most fallacious. If that line were followed, the Board of Trade would have to wait until an industry were completely bankrupt before they did anything to assist it. They would encourage inefficiency and incompetence instead of what we think they ought to do, encourage efficiency and competence, and give the efficient company the same chance and opportunity as an incompetent one.
The question which we have to ask ourselves to-night is whether the Government are justified in providing for the continuation of the shipping subsidy to this branch of the mercantile marine. I contend that they are fully justified in doing so, and that if they did not do so they would be lacking in fulfilment of their duty. The subsidy provided last year has undoubtedly done a great deal to bring greater prosperity and greater co-ordina-

tion to the industry, to provide new tonnage to replace the redundant tonnage, to provide employment for thousands of men and better wages and better working conditions for thousands who, for years, have been obliged to walk the streets of this country unemployed. For those reasons alone I think the Government are fully justified in providing this Measure, with all the conditions which are attached to it, and making it absolutely imperative that no company that did not fulfil the most stringent conditions laid down by the Board of Trade should receive this subsidy from public funds.
What alternatives to this Measure are put forward by the Opposition? They say that the subsidy should be restricted to certain companies, and that no company showing a respectable balance sheet should receive it. I have dealt with that argument before, and I know that it is completely fallacious and unworkable. The other alternative, as hon. Members have said, is the nationalisation of the industry. After all the experiments which we have before us from Australia, Canada, and the United States of America, where hundreds of millions of pounds have been spent and lost in nationalising this particular industry, surely no hon. Member, and nobody outside a lunatic asylum, would ask this country to use that method of trying to resuscitate an industry in this country. They point to the fact that other nations have adopted nationalisation, but the only mercantile marine that is nationalised to-day is the Russian mercantile marine. Would any Member of the Opposition dare stand up, either here or in his constituency, and ask his constituents, or any sailor in this country, to accept the wages or working conditions which are imposed upon Russian sailors to-day? I am convinced that they would not do that, because, whatever may be said about the conditions in our mercantile marine—and I do not uphold them whole-heartedly; there is great room for reform—at any rate they are not working, as Russian seamen are, for 3os. a month, and they have conditions far superior to those of any Russian seaman. In these circumstances I think an ample case has been made out for the continuation of the subsidy under certain conditions, and that no case at all has been made out for nationalisation or any other alternative that has been put forward to-night.

10.42. p.m.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: I should like to associate myself with what has been said by the hon. Member for East Hull (Mr. Muff), and another of my hon. Friends who, spoke so sincerely and truthfully on, behalf of the sailors of the mercantile marine. I think I have some claim to speak on behalf of those for whom, wore than for the shipowners, voices require to be raised, namely, the seamen. Something has been said about the appalling conditions, not only of the lascars, but of the white seamen, in what are sometimes called, even by enlightened shipowners, the "slums of the sea." Those conditions, in ships where lascars and white men are working together, cannot be confined to the lascars' quarters only.
I have some claim to speak on behalf of the seamen, because my own constituency is, a constituency of seamen. They have an age-old tradition as sailors, as mariners, as adventurers. From the days of the Vikings right down to, the present time these people have followed the sea, they have depended upon the sea, and they have sailed to the farthest ends of the earth. That constituency to-day must be regarded, as an, hon. Member on the other side said the shipping industry must be regarded, as a distressed area. Only a short time ago we had a Debate in this House on the subject of the distress in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, and it is to the fact that a sufficient number of our island-born seamen are not able, or are not encouraged by the conditions, to follow their natural calling of the sea, that in a large measure the distress from which the Highlands and Islands of Scotland are suffering to-day is due.
Nobody, can underestimate the services which these men, in peace and in war, have given to the nation, but what people have done—I refer particularly to the shipowners—is to underestimate the reward that ought to be given to these men in time of peace for what they did for the country, not only in time of peace, but in time of war. All the reward they get is possibly a little praise in this House and a little praise outside this House, but they cannot live on a little praise alone. We on this side are just as eager as hon. and right hon. Members opposite to see Britain with a properly equipped,

efficient and sufficient Navy and merchant service; we are just asxious that Britain should lead the world in these respects as any Member on the other side of the House. But we are compelled to raise our voices, as so many hon. Members opposite do not do, with notable exceptions, on behalf of those who are not properly organised to speak for themselves and are not represented in this House in a, majority, as the shipowners are.
We recognise the importance of the merchant service, more important in time of war even than in time of peace, and just as important as the naval service. The Navy is really a protective and emergency defence service, but tramp shipping is a part of that service which, along with agriculture, is one of the most vital of all and on which we depend in peace and war for feeding the nation. While we are all agreed on the importance of the shipping industry, sufficient emphasis is not laid on what must be recognised as the most important part of the shipping service, and that is the seamen. It is they who have built up the merchant service and on whom we depend to run tramp shipping, and, they are the people who should have first consideration and for whom first provision ought to be made in any subsidy. The conditions in which they work are among the least attractive of any, in the country. They are asking for very ordinary things. They, are not even asking for; short hours but only for a decent arrangement of the hours during which they work and sleep. They are asking for nourishing and attractive food, which in many cases they do not get. They are asking for proper accommodation on the ships that are referred to as the slums of the sea.
There are many cases of the "Crescenta" kind. Those ships do not all sink. They ought to be sunk, but I do not think that the lives of the sailors ought to be sacrificed in the process. I think Members on all sides will agree that the most important considerations in any industry are the wages and condition of the workers, without whom the industry could not be carried on, and if an industry cannot afford to pay proper wages and give proper conditions it should be smashed. I am not referring to the shipping industry as a whole but to individual companies which, if they cannot pay proper wages to the workers,


who are indispensable to them, should be put out of operation. They should not be dished out doles of money without proper conditions and control. Any decent human being has a right to decent food, accommodation and arrangement of hours, and above all the workers in an indispensable and dangerous calling. The workers are the salt of the earth. Well, the seamen are the salt of the sea.
If the calling of the sea loses its savour the Government will have to consider carefully and urgently how it is to be made more attractive. Men in our seaport towns are not now attracted to the sea, and if we are to keep our merchant ships at the proper level of efficiency, properly equipped with a sufficient supply of well-trained sailors, we must make conditions more attractive for them. We are not doing that by handing out subsidies to the owners of the ships. We can only do it by laying down as the first essential that the conditions and wages of the sailors must be improved before anything goes into profits for anyone else.

10.52 p.m.

Colonel Ropner: I had hoped to devote some part of the beginning of my speech to showing how important it is for this country to maintain an adequate mercantile marine in peace and war. But the hour is late, the Parliamentary Secretary has been very patient, and in any case there has been general agreement in all quarters that in times of peace and war it is essential that we should maintain a large merchant navy. It was with these considerations in mind that about three years ago the Government and the country were shocked to realise that the mercantile marine, both actually and relatively, was rapidly shrinking. The tonnage sailing under the Red Ensign was less, and compared with the merchant navies of other nations we were falling short in proportionate strength. It was in these circumstances that the Government was compelled to take action, not only for the safety of the nation, but also because of a realisation of the absolute obligation which falls on any Government to protect an efficient and important national industry which is being ruined by unfair foreign competition.
After a full inquiry, with a means test of a rigorous and searching description,

it was established that the British shipping industry was entirely efficient but that British owners and managers, their officers, engineers, seamen and firemen, were being forced to meet but were powerless against foreign competition of an unfair kind. That competition was unfair for three main reasons. There was, in the first place, gross discrimination in favour of their own flags by foreign nations; in the second place wages on foreign ships were much lower than those paid on British ships, in some cases not more than one-quarter of the British rates, and for that reason running costs of foreign vessels were much lower; and there was the third reason that foreign nations were giving high subsidies, direct and indirect, to the ships sailing under their flags. No claim was ever made by shipowners for State asistance on the ground that there was internal competition. The industry was in no way responsible for that foreign competition, and I would ask the House to note that shipping was suffering from competition very similar in kind to that which necessitated the protection of manufacturing industries, but that owing to the peculiar nature of the shipping industry, it was not possible, perhaps unfortunately, to protect it by a direct tariff.
I would ask the House to notice also that the unfair conditions to which I have referred are entirely independent of whether the industry is enjoying good times or suffering from bad times. If times are good the foreigner will make a higher profit; if times are bad the foreigner will sustain a lower loss. In either case, the foreign competitor ever grows stronger in relation to the Britisher. I submit for the very careful consideration of the Government that, if it wishes the British mercantile marine to compete on level terms with the subsidised foreigner, it should have recognised that, in the first place, the subsidy must continue as long as our ships are trading at an unfair disadvantage without it. It follows from that, in the second place, if the Government are desirous, as the shipowners are, of discontinuing the subsidy, that they should have done, and ought now to do, whatever is possible to bring about conditions under which this payment is no longer necessary.
It was two years ago, because of the conditions which I have mentioned and in order to prevent the British mercantile


marine from being swept from the seas, that the Government announced a temporary and conditional subsidy of £2,000,000 for a year. For a time at least British shipping was to be put on terms of equality with foreign competitors. But the fact that unfair foreign competition would continue until the advantages which foreign owners at present enjoy, had, by some means, been eradicated, has never really been faced by the Government. The President of the Board of Trade has never looked more than 12 months ahead. I would have asked the President of the Board of Trade if he had been here this question. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to give me the reply, if I ask him. Does he suppose that fair trade can be established for British shipping merely by the expression of a fervent hope that such will be the case? Does the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade expect that foreign Governments will voluntarily cease to subsidise their shipping? Does the Government expect that foreign wages will be increased? Does the Government expect that discrimination against the Red Ensign will end at the end of 1937, when, we have been told, the subsidy will end?
If the subsidy, as we were informed two years ago, is to meet subsidies, why then has it been announced that it must be discontinued at the end of this year? The £4,000,000 which tramp shipping has received has been of the utmost value to that section of the industry. I do not want to disguise that fact for one moment. On more than one occasion I have told this House all that that money has done for tramp shipping, and indeed it would be absurd to suppose that you could give such a large amount of money to an industry without some benefit having accrued both to owners and to seamen, but no permanent result has been achieved. The brave words of the President of the Board of Trade have been translated into a defeatist policy. When other nations were sweeping the Red Ensign from the seas, and in face of continual foreign subsidies of tens of millions of pounds, the Government, tentatively and somewhat timidly, announced a subsidy for British shipping of £2,000,000 for one year, but in giving the subsidy they enforce conditions which not only prevented British ships from

seizing lost markets, but led to a further diminution in the size of the British Mercantile Marine. Conditions which in fact have helped the foreign owners as much as they have helped British owners.
The hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), who has just come into the House and for whom I have been looking all day, has accused me on more than one occasion of coming here and asking for a continuation of the subsidy. I have told him that shipowners are desirous of terminating the subsidy, and he has naturally asked that I should put forward an alternative policy to that which is being followed to-day. It has not been the right occasion to do so previously, but I hope to fulfil his wish this evening. First of all, however, may I remind the House of what the Government actually have done and of the conditions which they imposed? It has been the manner of giving the subsidy which has been so shamefully short-sighted. In effect, the Government have said to shipowners, "We will give tramp shipping a subsidy, but it must not be dissipated. You shipowners must co-operate, both nationally and internationally. You must not hurt your foreign competitors. You must try to make profits. You must ignore the fact that if you do make profits under these conditions, the foreigner will probably be making still greater profits. You must not have too many ships. Let other nations build ships, but if we are to help you, you must scrap two tons of old tonnage for every one new ton which you order." The Government added: "As to liners and cargo liners, they can look after themselves."
I do not deny that that policy was welcomed by some, indeed by many shipowners. But drowning men do not take a very long view. Many shipowners had got under the ice. They clutched at a little more life—a £2,000,000 gulp of oxygen. Now, the Government have announced that they are going to push them under again, but before doing so they have ensured by the policy which has been followed for the last two years that a few stones have been placed in the pockets of these unfortunate, drowning shipowners. The Government could have broken the ice and have rendered further help unnecessary. The President of the Board of Trade insisted that profits should be made where possible, instead of ensuring that the subsidy be used as a


fighting fund to drive foreign competitors out of business. Dividends have been paid, wages have been raised, conditions have been improved but running costs have been increased—all stones round the neck of shipping. I am sorry that conditions have made it possible to do any of these things during the last two years. That, if you like, is dissipating the subsidy. Meanwhile, those who desire, as I do, to see conditions established which shall lead to a termination of the subsidy, have been denied the elementary right of fighting the foreigners who have stolen British trade.
Do the Japanese scrap two tons of old shipping before they assist their nationals to build one? Are the Americans cooperating in the Pacific? Are the Japanese co-operating with British owners in the India trade? The hon. and gallant Member for Portsmouth, South (Sir H. Cayzer) has given case after case where the foreigner is filching trade from British owners. What an opportunity has been missed! Conditions some months ago were ideal for a fight. The rates of freight were then at starvation level. A larger subsidy, but not very much larger, for a shorter time, applied in a different way, could have brought permanent results. Why could not the Government have said to the shipping industry—and this is where I hope to indicate an alternative policy which would have led to the termination of the subsidy—"We are going to give you a subsidy. You have been fighting a losing battle alone. Now, we are going to help you. Other nations may be strong or weak financially, but we believe that no nation is stronger than ours in that respect." They could have said to shipowners: "Go into your markets. Under-cut those who have been stealing from you. If foreign subsidies have cheated you of trade, we will ensure that you are able to out-cheat the cheats. Bring out your old ships, put the whole of your fleet into commission, build new ships, do not scrap any ship but run them in all trades, everywhere and at any price." Having said that, they would have had to say also: "Do not talk now of higher wages. Do not talk now of returns on capital. We are fighting. All engaged in the industry, from the managing director to the latest joined office boy on shore, from the master of the ship to the latest joined

cabin boy afloat, are in the battle and we are going to see you through."
Having said that, as I still hope they may, when the foreigner cries for mercy, when international agreements have been reached, when we can compete permanently on equal terms, then the subsidy can stop, and we shall lead the world again in returns to both capital and labour. I once asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he would describe the subsidy as an offensive or a defensive subsidy, and I think that he replied that he could not bother to distinguish between the two. I wish that he had. Had the subsidy been administered offensively, had we been empowered to fight those who have fought us for so many years, we could have achieved permanent results. As it is, this country has not yet begun to solve those problems, which unless some solution is found will lead to the virtual extermination, the annihilation of the British mercantile marine.

11.13 p.m.

Dr. Burgin: I can reply only by leave of the House, but as questions have been addressed to me I gather that it is the wish of hon. Members that I should endeavour to answer them. In reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Barkston Ash (Colonel Ropner), I think he may take it that if foreign nations do not learn from experience that uneconomic shipping subsidies bring troubles in their train, other measures must be taken to make the lesson clearer and that the resources of the British Government are by no means exhausted. The House is discussing the Second Reading of the British Shipping (Continuance of Subsidy) Bill, and a reasoned Amendment put forward by the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood). His constant reference to the hon. Member for Rotherhithe (Mr. Benjamin Smith) reminded us all that we were under the shadow of Big Ben.
There seems to be a good deal of confusion in the minds of hon. Members with regard to the position of lascar crews, and a good deal has been said to-night which is years out of date, and which, perhaps, it is necessary to clarify. Speaker after speaker has been addressing the House as if there were something improper about the employment of lascar crews, and as if the employment of lascar


crews came under the National Maritime Board. Let us just understand the position. The employment of a large number of lascars in the British mercantile marine is of very long standing. It has special Statutory sanction. If hon. Members will read through Section 125 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, they will find the whole circumstances of the employment of lascars set out in detail, and they will see that there was a number of earlier Acts. Lascars, many of whom are British subjects—and it is a cardinal rule of the Government that you cannot distinguish between different British subjects by colour, race, creed or residence—are employed in the way I have said. They are signed on, as a general rule, in India, under the special provisions of this Section of the Act. It is the case that they are paid lower rates of wages per head than are British seamen signed on in the United Kingdom.
I am informed that there are additional costs incurred in the employment of a lascar crew—additional costs for food, costs for warm clothing and the obligation to repatriate them at the end of the voyage. They are employed on a number of routes. They are employed by vessels which trade, among other routes, between ports where British crews are not available and under climatic conditions which are not suitable for white seamen. The whole matter has been debated at length, and I would refer hon. Members to the Debate on the Committee stage of the British Shipping Assistance Bill on 10th December, 1934. So much for the actual employment of lascars. What has the employment of lascars to do with the present Debate? It is alleged by hon. Members opposite that lascars, if employed, should be paid the European rates of wages. That is quite untenable.

Mr. Benjamin Smith: It was the hon. Gentleman himself who informed me, in reply to a question I put, that the lascars employed were paid European rates. He made that assertion.

Dr. Burgin: The hon. Member is misinformed. On 17th December—he will correct me at once if I am not referring to his question—the hon. Member asked me a question relating to the crew of the "Dumfries," but it raised the general question. He asked whether the

rates of pay given to the lascar seamen and firemen are in accord with the decisions of the National Maritime Board, and the reply was:
The National Maritime Board decisions as to rates of wages do not apply to the lascar crew who were engaged in India on lascar agreements."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th December, 1936; col. 2635, Vol. 318.]

Mr. Smith: The inference to be drawn from that was that they do apply to those not engaged in India, but engaged in this country.

Dr. Burgin: I know of none. Mr. Smith: I know of plenty.

Dr. Burgin: Well, we will see. In the Debate on the Committee stage of the first Subsidy Bill, in December 1934, Amendments were moved by hon. Members opposite, first as to National Maritime Board rates of wages, and secondly to the effect that there should be a definite proportion of British domiciled seamen. Neither Amendment found favour with the House, but the matter was debated at length. There are, in fact, no National Maritime Board agreements relating to lascars engaged in India. The Subsidy Committee require, with regard to employment on ships qualifying for subsidy, first that British crews should be employed wherever possible, and secondly, that National Maritime Board rates of wages should be paid whenever applicable—I would ask the House to note those words—which means that there are some cases where the National Maritime Board rates of wages are not applicable. The third stipulation is compliance with all the relevant agreements of the National Maritime Board, such as those relating to the number of deck officers and the agreement as to hours of work.

Mr. Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman answer this: Did he not state himself that the document that he has there says that the National Maritime Board rates are to be paid, whereas his argument is exactly the contrary?

Dr. Burgin: On the contrary. I am attempting to deal quite simply with a position which I thought had been clarified in 1934 and which I thought had been perfectly plain to the whole House ever since. There is not, and as far as I know never has been, a National Maritime Board rate of wages applicable to a lascar crew engaged in India under a


lascar agreement. It is for that reason that when the undertaking was given that in order to qualify for subsidy National Maritime Board rates of wages should be payable, the words, "when applicable" were added. Whatever the opinion of certain hon. Members opposite may be, that is the practice which has been followed, and I believe it to be impossible for any hon. Member opposite to find a National Maritime Board agreement which relates to a lascar crew engaged outside the United Kingdom.

Mr. Smith: Would it not be equally impossible for the hon. Member to find an agreement made by two bona fide bodies in India applying to lascars?

Dr. Burgin: I do not want to carry on this discussion on a kind of Punch and Judy system, but I want the House to understand that Section 125 of the Merchant Shipping Act of 1894, has no such provision in it as the hon. Member opposite, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield appeared to suggest. References were made in the speeches to-day to the fact that agreements signed under the Government of India did not appear to be made with representatives of the men, but rather to be made between the men and the masters.

Mr. Smith: It was the India Office, not you.

Dr. Burgin: One orator at a time. Mr. Smith: Where is he?

Dr. Burgin: Under Section 125 of the Act of 1894, the master or owner of any ship may enter into an agreement with a lascar—not an association of lascarsor any native of India binding him to proceed to any port in the United Kingdom or in Australia and the agreement is to be in such form and contain such conditions for securing the return of the lascar or native to his own country as the Governor-General of India in Council may direct. There is nothing about an association of men.

Mr. Smith: Nothing about wages either.

Dr. Burgin: The general form of the agreement is to be laid down by the Government of India and the agreement is then made between the lascar and the master.

Earl Winterton: It has been repeated in the Government of India Act.

Dr. Burgin: I am much obliged to the Noble Lord and I agree that that is so. That is the broad principle with regard to lascars. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield dealt with two ships, the "Baron Inchcape" and the "Dumfries," and it is only right that I should say something about those cases.
It will be within the recollection of the House that the right hon. Member for Wakefield made this point: How could a British officer on a British ship be paid something less than the National Maritime Board rate of wages inadvertently? The right hon. Gentleman made great play with the word "inadvertently." He was wholly sceptical that such a set of conditions could arise. What are the facts? An owner has four ships, broadly speaking, of the same size, something over 6,000 tons. One has a shelter deck and by a system of calculation is classed as having a gross tonnage of 7,005. There is a different rate of wages at the 7,000 gross tons limit. There are four boats as like as four peas, and it is found by the Subsidy Committee that the rates of wages ought to be different on the fourth from the remaining three because of the five tons gross difference due to the shelter deck. That was an inadvertence in payment, but the Subsidy Committee were not satisfied with calling the shipowners' attention to it and saying, "This has got to be rectified." They said, "No subsidy until you pay, and no subsidy until you have proved you have paid." The endorsed cheques for the payments of those wages were produced before the subsidy was released. If the right hon. Gentleman can find cause for grumbling in that, he is welcome to the opportunity. It was a clear case of inadvertence, and that is the case that has been paraded before the House of Commons as an instance of unwillingness on the part of shipowners to pay wages at the National Maritime Board rates.
In regard to the "Dumfries," the facts as put by the right hon. Member for Wakefield were these. A vessel—the "Cromarty"—comes from India with an Indian lascar crew. The "Dumfries" has a white British crew. On arrival in this country the "Cromarty" is sold. The white crew


of the "Dumfries" are discharged, the officers remain, and the lascar crew of the "Cromarty" are transferred to the "Dumfries." These are the broad facts. The right hon. Gentleman thinks that that is an instance of white people being discharged to their detriment, and of lascars being engaged in circumstances in which a white crew might have been engaged. Let the House understand the position. The owner of the "Cromarty" is under obligation, by the agreement he has signed in India, to repatriate his lascar crew to India. He has to get them back by sea to India. The agreement has still 15 months to run. What is he going to do? Pay passenger rates for them to go by P. & O.? [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] He does not, because he has a ship of his own, the "Dumfries," and it would be more interesting and convincing had the right hon. Gentleman been able to say that a single one of those white seamen did not find employment at the port at which they were discharged. The fact that they are not unemployed at this day shows that they did. The "Dumfries" sailed from the Bristol Channel for the Plate. It is an unusual trip. Whether she is outward bound with coal I do not know, I have not yet had an opportunity of calling for the file to see the particular circumstances in which the "Dumfries" sailed. The fact that her lascar agreement has another 15 months to run shows that there is an opportunity of trading before repatriation takes place.
Those are the whole facts of the "Cromarty" and of the "Dumfries." Many of them have been mentioned before in the course of question and

answer across the Floor of the House, but I thought it right to call the attention of the House to them.

There have been other speeches dealing with other aspects of this matter. No one will quarrel with the speeches of the hon. Members who have laid great stress on the important part played by the shipping industry. Do not let us forget that although it is true that a ship cannot go to sea without seamen it is equally true that seamen cannot go to sea without a ship, and some regard must be had to capital considerations, not only the capital needed for the building of the ship but working capital for running it.

Government control and nationalisation have raised their heads in this Debate. The hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Wight (Captain P. Macdonald) gave some instances. If the House will give me half a minute I would like to remind hon. Members of what happened in the United States. In the five years from 1917 to 1922 2,300 vessels built for the United States Government, a large proportion of the fleet always laid up and in 1935 only 40 vessels in operation. In 1928 the operating loss 16,000,000 dollars for the year; in 1929 14,000,000 dollars; in 1935 2,000,000 dollars. The decrease in the operating loss was not brought about by running ships at a profit, but by selling large blocks of the tonnage.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 176; Noes, 101.

Division No. 70.]
AYES.
[11.33 p.m.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Bull, B. B.
Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd)
Bullock, Capt. M.
Cross, R. H.


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Crowder, J. F. E.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Butler, R. A.
Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)


Aske, Sir R. W.
Campbell, Sir E. T.
De Chair, S. S.


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Cartland, J. R. H.
De la Bère, R.


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Cary, R. A.
Denman, Hon. R. D.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Castlereagh, Viscount
Doland, G. F.


Barrie, Sir C. C.
Cayzer, Sir H. R. (Portsmouth, S.)
Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.


Baxter, A. Beverley
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Dugdale, Major T. L.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Channon, H.
Duggan, H. J.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Duncan, J. A. L.


Bird, Sir R. B.
Clarke, F. E.
Edmondson, Major Sir J.


Bottom, A. C.
Clarke, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.


Boulton, W. W.
Clarry. Sir Reginald
Elliston, Capt. G. S.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Emrys-Evans, P. V.


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Errington, E.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Cranborne, Viscount
Everard, W. L.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Craven-Ellis, W.
Fildes, Sir H.


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Crooke, J. S.
Fleming, E. L.




Fremantle, Sir F. E.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Furness, S. N.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Rowlands, G.


Fyfe, D. P. M.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)


Ganzoni, Sir J.
McKie, J. H.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J.
Salmon, Sir I.


Gluckstein, L. H.
Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.
Samuel, M. R. A. (Putney)


Grimston, R. V.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


Gritten, W. G. Howard
Markham, S. F.
Scott, Lord William


Guy, J. C. M.
Maxwell, Hon. S. A.
Selley, H. R.


Hacking, Rt. Hon. D. H.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Hanbury, Sir C.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.


Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Spens. W. P.


Hepworth, J.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cironcester)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Storey, S.


Holmes, J. S.
Munro, P.
Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.


Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)


Hopkinson, A.
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Horsbrugh, Florence
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Sutcliffe, H.


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Patrick, C. M.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Hunter, T.
Peake, O.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Jackson, Sir H.
Peat, C. U.
Touche, G. C.


Keeling, E. H.
Penny, Sir G.
Turton, R. H.


Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Petherick, M.
Wakefield, W. W.


Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Porritt, R. W.
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.
Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Kimball, L.
Procter, Major H. A.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak)
Radford, E. A.
Wells, S. R.


Leckie, J. A.
Raikes, H. V. A. M.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Levy, T.
Rathbone. J. R. (Bodmin)
Withers, Sir J. J.


Liddall, W. S.
Rayner, Major R. H.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Llewellin, Lieut-Col. J. J.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)
Wright, Squadron-Leader J. A. C.


Lloyd, G. W.
Raid, Sir D. D. (Down)
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)



Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Renter, J. R.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Sir James Blindell and Mr. James


McCorquodale, M. S.
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)
Stuart.




NOES.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Griffiths, G. A. (Homsworth)
Ridley, G.


Adamson, W. M.
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Riley, B.


Ammon, C. G.
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Ritson, J.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Harris, Sir P. A.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Barnes, A. J.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Rowson, G.


Barr, J.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Seely, Sir H. M


Batey, J.
Hopkin, D.
Sexton. T. M.


Bellenger, F. J.
Jagger, J.
Short, A.


Benson, G.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Simpson, F. B.


Broad, F. A.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Smith, Ben (Rothorhithe)


Buchanan, G.
Kelly, W. T.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Cape, T.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Sorensen, R. W.


Cassells, T.
Lathan, G.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-la-Sp'ng)


Charleton, H. C.
Lawson, J. J.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Cluse, W. S.
Lee, F.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Cooks, F. S.
Logan, D. G.
Thurtle, E.


Dalton, H.
Lunn, W.
Tinker, J. J.


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Viant, S. P.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
McEntee, V. La T.
Walkden, A. G.


Dobbie, W.
McGhee, H. G.
Walker, J.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)
Watkins, F. C.


Ede, J. C.
Marshall, F.
Watson, W. McL.


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
Maxton, J.
Welsh, J. C.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Messer, F.
Whiteley, W.


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Milner, Major J.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Foot, D. M.
Muff, G.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Frankel, D.
Oliver, G. H.
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Gardner, B. W.
Parkinson, J. A.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Garro Jones, G. M.
Pethick-Lawrenee, F. W,
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Gibbins, J.
Potts, J.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Price, M. P.



Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Pritt, D. N.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Grenfell, D R.
Quibell, D. J. K.
Mr. Mathers and Mr. John.


Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)



Question put, and agreed to.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Monday next.—[Captain Margesson.]

PUBLIC WORKS LOANS (REMISSION OF DEBT).

Resolution reported,
That, for the purpose of any Act of the present Session relating to local loans, it is expedient to authorise the remission of arrears of principal and interest due to the Public Works Loan Commissioners in respect of Eye-mouth Harbour.

PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.

Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 1) BILL.

Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

EAST INDIA LOANS BILL.

Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; to be read the Third time upon Monday next.

CHAIRMEN OF TRAFFIC COMMISSIONERS, ETC. (TENURE OF OFFICE) [MONEY].

Resolution reported,
That it is expedient that persons holding any of the offices to which this Resolution applies should in lieu of holding office for a term of years, hold office during His Majesty's pleasure or during good behaviour, subject to any provision which may be made by any Act of the present Session for giving effect to this Resolution as to age of retirement or as to removal for misbehaviour or inability and to any provisions for vacation of or removal from office before the expiration of the term thereof to which such persons are now subject, and accordingly that the Superannuation Acts, 1834 to 5935, should apply to such persons with such modifications as may be specified in any such act as aforesaid, and that any expenses arising from the application of the Superannuation Acts to the President of the Railway Rates Tribunal should be defrayed as expenses of that Tribunal.
The offices to which this Resolution applies are those of—

(i) Chairman of Traffic Commissioners under the Road Traffic Act, 1930;
(ii) Traffic Commissioner under that Act for the Metropolitan traffic area;

(iii) Chairman of the Appeal Tribunal established by section fifteen of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 5933; and
(iv) President of the Railway Rates Tribunal."

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Mr. Tinker: I understood that the Chief Whip was not taking any contentious matter. We oppose this on principle. It is a contentious Measure and ought not to be taken at this time of night.

11.49 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Margesson): There has been discussion through the usual channels as to what business might be taken and I was told that, provided the Government did not proceed with the Money Resolution dealing with Statutory Salaries or the Third Reading of the Empire Settlement Bill, it would be all right to proceed with the Report stage of this Resolution in order that the Bill to be founded on it may be discussed next week. I hope the hon. Member will not press his objection any further.

Mr. Benjamin Smith: The Minister responsible for the Bill should at least explain it so that the House knows on what it is voting.

11.50 p.m.

Mr. Kelly: It is surprising that at this hour we should be asked to take even the Report stage of this Measure. The way that six or eight Measures have been rushed through this week is not good for the reputation of the House or its method of doing business. We are asked to agree to this now so that it may be rushed through—probably so that little attention can be given to it.

Captain Margesson: I have no wish to press this Motion. We should not have taken it except for the agreement between myself and the hon. Gentleman opposite. It can be taken another night, and in view of what has been said I move, "That the Debate be now adjourned."

Debate to be resumed upon Monday next.

DISEASES OF FISH [MONEY].

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 69.

[Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to prevent the spreading of disease among salmon and freshwater fish in Great Britain, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of such sums as may be necessary to defray any expenses incurred by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries or a Secretary of State in connection with the execution of the said Act, or in connection with any arrangements made by him with the consent of the Treasury for the carrying on of scientific investigation or laboratory diagnosis as to diseases affecting fish of the salmon family or freshwater fish." (King's Recommendation signified.)—[Mr. W. S. Morrison.]

11.52 p.m.

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. W. S. Morrison): The Bill to which this is the Financial Resolution deals with furunculosis in fish. On the last occasion when it was before us an hon. Member opposite drew attention to the amount of money to be spent on administering this Bill. He expressed the view that it was too slight an expenditure for the purpose. I would like the Committee to understand that all research necessary for this purpose has already been done, and the expenditure now involved is merely to work a testing station and pay one or two extra salaries for men who will test fish suspected to have this disease. The disease is well understood, the bacillus has been identified, and all that is necessary for the working of the Bill is that this money should be sanctioned for a testing station so that the disease can be identified if samples are sent.

11.54 p.m.

Earl Winterton: This matter is obviously capable of a good deal of facetiousness, but I do not rise for that purpose. I would like to ask the Minister whether there will be any report made of the result of the interesting experiment so that hon. Members may be informed of the work.

Mr. Morrison: The House will be kept informed of the progress of the work. It is a matter in which the whole House is interested, irrespective of party, and it is a matter of great commercial as well as of sporting interest.

11.55 p.m.

Mr. Maxton: Is not the Minister doing that sort of work as the ordinary routine? Why come and bother us with a special Vote for this money? I thought that the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries had a general duty to look after these matters. It is very interesting to hear that this is an important industry. There are only about 20 people employed in it. I have had occasion to meet one or two men engaged in that industry on previous occasions when they have been in difficulty. I know that there is only a handful of them. The main interest concerned here is the sporting interest. That is the one interest that is really concerned. It is preposterous that we should be asked to sit here until midnight discussing blisters on salmon.

11.56 p.m.

Mr. R. J. Taylor: I wonder whether the money which is to be spent in eradicating this very devastating disease among salmon will be of any great advantage to the large number of working men who are very artful and skilful in the catching of salmon. It is a pity that all this waste of salmon goes on, but there is another aspect of this matter which alarms me very much. I have in mind probably the best salmon river in England. It is a river that I know very well. If the present practice on that river continues, it will become practically impossible for working men to catch the salmon which you are going to save from disease in the future. On the river of which I am speaking, men pay up to £2 10s. for a licence, and then the Duchess of Northumberland will express a wish that she wants to fish the best part of the river for about a month at the best time of the year, and, of course, working men are warned off. I want the salmon family to be saved from disease, and I am very much interested in working men having an opportunity to fish our rivers for migratory fish which proceed to and from the sea. It alarms me when working men have their pleasures curtailed. We are going to save these salmon for wealthy men, who can buy up long stretches of river. Some of these stretches are let on lease for about £200 for probably about six weeks' fishing in the spring and in the autumn. It is this sort of thing in which I am interested, and probably we shall have something more to say about it.

11.59 p.m.

Sir Hugh Seely: I disagree with the view of the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton), and I am in complete agreement with the noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton). I am the Member for Berwick-on-Tweed, and there is no doubt that salmon fishing, with which this Order has a great deal to do, is more to the benefit of the poorer people and of the real industry, and not necessarily for the line fishing. It is for that reason that I support it. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton said he knew of only 12 people, but it is not so; it is a whole town which is dependent on this industry. It is not the line fishermen for whom I hold a brief; I hold a brief for those people engaged in salmon fishing and any money spent on that to make it better will be to the advantage of some of the poorest and most hard-hit people in the country.

Resolution to be reported upon Monday next.

EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE SELECT COMMITTEES.

Ordered,
That it be an Instruction to the Select Committee on Publications and Debates to consider the rules of this House with regard to the distribution of evidence taken by any Select Committee of this House, and of documents presented to any such Committee, which have not been reported to the House, and to report on the desirability of regulating the procedure by Standing Order."—[Sir G. Penny.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Thursday evening, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Two Minutes after Twelve o'Clock.